Memoir of John Murray

NINES categories for Genre and Material Form at http://www.performantsoftware.com/nines_wiki/index.php/Submitting_RDF#.3Cnines:genre.3E on 2009-02-26 Bibliography Book History Collection Criticism Drama Ephemera Fiction Humor Law Letters Life Writing History Manuscript Nonfiction Periodical Politics Reference Works Poetry Religion Review Translation Travel

<seg rend="30px"> <hi rend="italic"> <hi rend="small-caps">A Publisher and His Friends</hi> </hi> </seg> <lb/> <lb/> <figure rend="line"/> <lb/> <seg rend="24px">MEMOIR AND CORRESPONDENCE</seg> <lb/> <seg rend="11px">OF THE LATE</seg> <lb/> <seg rend="36px">JOHN MURRAY,</seg> <lb/> <seg rend="11px">WITH</seg> <lb/> <seg rend="17px"> AN ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF THE HOUSE, 1768-1843</seg> <lb/> <lb/> <lb/> <lb/> <seg rend="20px">SAMUEL SMILES, LL.D.</seg> <lb/> <seg rend="11px">AUTHOR OF ‘LIVES OF THE ENGINEERS,’ ‘SELF-HELP,’ ETC.</seg> <lb/> <lb/> <lb/> <seg rend="16px">IN TWO VOLUMES—VOL. I.</seg> <lb/> <lb/> <lb/> <seg rend="14px"> <hi rend="italic">WITH PORTRAITS.</hi> </seg> <lb/> <lb/> <lb/> <lb/> <lb/> <seg rend="16px">LONDON:</seg> <lb/> <seg rend="18px">JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.</seg> <lb/> <seg rend="14px">1891.</seg>

PREFACE.

It is not necessary to give in any detail an introduction to the Memoir and Correspondence of the late John Murray. The Memoir, and especially the Correspondence of the Publisher and his friends, will speak for themselves. They are of value as giving a full picture of the literature and principal men of letters of the first half of the present century. Indeed, going still farther back—to the life and correspondence of the late Mr. Murray’s father—they include, to a certain extent, the literature of the times of Dr. Johnson, Dr. Langhorne, Dr. Cartwright, and others.

The late Mr. Murray was the intimate friend and correspondent of Sir Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Canning, Southey, the Disraelis, Campbell, Crabbe, Hallam, Croker, Milman, Washington Irving, Madame de Staël; as well as of the early editors of the Quarterly, Gifford, Coleridge, and Lockhart; and many original letters from these authors are given in the following pages.

It was observed by Southey that a man’s character may be judged of even more surely by the letters which his friends addressed to him, than by those which he himself penned. The same observation was made by Sir Henry Taylor; and, guided by this standard, the readers of these volumes will have little difficulty in forming an opinion as to the estimation in which Mr. Murray was held by his friends and contemporaries.

Lord Byron’s letters to Mr. Murray, published in Moore’s Life, have long been regarded not only as the best letters the poet ever wrote, but as masterpieces of English prose; but hitherto Mr. Murray’s letters, which called them forth, and form the complement of the correspondence, have never been made public. These, having been preserved by Lord Byron, and found amongst his papers, were bequeathed to Lord Broughton, and have been presented by his daughter, Lady Dorchester, to the present Mr. Murray. Many of these are incorporated in the following pages.

No attempt has been made, nor would it have been possible within the reasonable limits of such a work as this, to give a detailed account of the men and women whose names appear in its pages, and, for the most part, those names are already familiar to every student of literature.

The correspondence, which it is believed will, as a whole, cast fresh light on many an obscure spot in the history of modern English literature, is left, as far as possible, to tell its own tale, aided only by such elucidations and notes as seemed necessary for the use of the general reader. In carrying out this intention, it has occasionally been found necessary to print the whole or a portion of letters which have already appeared elsewhere, but for the most part, the materials included in these volumes are now published for the first time.

The letters which passed between the Publisher and his friends, extending over more than fifty years, were of course exceedingly numerous, and the necessary labour of searching, sifting, and collating, has been very great; but only the most important correspondence has been introduced in the Memoir.

I cannot conclude this brief Preface without acknowledging the great assistance I have received from Mr. John Murray, jun., who has with great assiduity and skill collected and annotated the correspondence which forms the principal portion of these volumes; and I also beg to offer my thanks to Mr. W. J. Courthope, who has read the proofs as the work was passing through the press, and in the concluding chapter has so ably summarized the characteristic traits of the late Mr. Murray as a Publisher.

S. S. London, February 1891.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. JOHN MACMURRAY OR MURRAY.

The first John Murray—An Officer of Marines—Retires from Active Service—His marriage—Correspondence with William Falconer—Falconer’s death—Murray purchases Sandby’s business—John Murray’s first publications—Dr. Cartwright—Dr. Langhorne—Mr. Enfield—Dr. Aikin—Mr. Kerr—Thomas Gumming goes to Ireland on behalf of Murray—Prof. J. Millar—Mr. Whitaker—Dr. Gilbert Stuart— The English Review —Defence of Sir R. Gordon—Dr. Gillies—Murray goes to Ireland to sell the Mount Ross estate—His controversy with Mr. Mason—The Edinburgh booksellers—Creech and Elliot—Dr. Cullen—The second John Murray—His education—Accident to his eye— The English Review —John Leslie—Illness and death of the elder John Murray. page 1

CHAPTER II. JOHN MURRAY (II.)—BEGINNING OF HIS PUBLISHING CAREER—ISAAC D’ISRAELI, ETC.

John Murray the Second—“The Anak of Publishers”—His start in business—Murray and Highley—Dissolution of the partnership—Anecdote of Chantrey—Colman’s “John Bull”—Dr. Cartwright—Mr. Joseph Hume—Mr. Bidlake—Archibald Constable—John Murray a Volunteer—Dr. Jenner on Vaccination—Badness of the times—The ‘Revolutionary Plutarch’—Correspondence with Mr. Addington—The D’Israeli family—Isaac D’Israeli’s early works—‘Flim-Flams’—Birth of Benjamin D’Israeli—Projected periodical the Institute—Correspondence of Isaac D’Israeli with John Murray—Murray’s illness. page 29

CHAPTER III. MURRAY AND CONSTABLE—HUNTER AND THE FORFARSHIRE LAIRDS—MARRIAGE OF JOHN MURRAY.

Archibald Constable & Co.—Alexander Gibson Hunter— The Edinburgh Review —Murray’s early associations with Constable—Dispute between Longman and Constable—Murray appointed London Agent—He urges reconciliation between Constable and Longman—The ‘Miniature’—Stratford Canning—Southey—Mr. Murray visits Edinburgh—Engaged to Miss Elliot—Goes into Forfarshire’—Rude Hospitality—Murray’s marriage—The D’Israelis. page 56

CHAPTER IV. ‘MARMION’—‘DOMESTIC COOKERY’—THE ‘EDINBURGH REVIEW.’

Murray’s business prospects—Acquires a share of ‘Marmion’—Becomes London publisher of the Edinburgh Review —Acquaintance with Walter Scott—Constable’s money transactions—Murray’s remonstrance—He separates from Constable—The Ballantynes—Scott joins their printing business—Literary schemes—The British Novelists—W. Scott’s letters to Murray—Edinburgh ‘Annual Register’—Rundell’s ‘Domestic Cookery’. page 75

CHAPTER V. ORIGIN OF THE ‘QUARTERLY REVIEW.’

Mr. Canning’s early schemes for a Penny Newspaper—The Anti-Jacobin —The Edinburgh Review —John Murray’s letter to Mr. Canning—Walter Scott’s assistance—Southey’s letter to Scott—Review of ‘Marmion’ in the Edinburgh —Murray’s connections—Meeting with James Ballantyne at Ferrybridge—Visit to Scott at Ashestiel—Letters to Scott—Scott’s letters to Murray, Ellis and Gifford on the Quarterly —Arrangements for the first number—Articles by Scott—James Mill—Mrs. Inchbald—Dr. Thomas Young. page 91

CHAPTER VI. GEORGE ELLIS AND WILLIAM GIFFORD.

George Ellis’ early publications—Accompanies Sir J. Harris to the Hague and Lille—Acquaintance with George Canning—The Anti-Jacobin —Acquaintance with Scott—Share in the foundation of the Quarterly—His contributions to the Review—William Gifford—Sketch of his early life and difficulties—Correspondence with Wm. Cookesley—Cookesley’s death—Letter from Wm. Cobbett. page 125

CHAPTER VII. THE ‘QUARTERLY’ LAUNCHED.

Meeting of Murray and Ballantyne at Boroughbridge—Walter Scott’s interest in the new Review—Publication of the first number of the Quarterly —Scott’s proposed ‘Secret History of the Court of James I.’—His ‘Unauthenticated Books’—‘Portcullis Copies’—Old English Froissart—Opinions of the Quarterly —Scott’s energy and encouragement—Mr. George Ellis—Mr. Barre-Roberts—Murray’s correspondence with Mr. Stratford Canning—Murray’s energy—Leigh Hunt—Professor Thomson—James Mill—Gifford’s unpunctuality—Appearance of the second number—Mr. Canning’s contributions—Appearance of No. 3—Letters from Mr. Ellis—Isaac D’Israeli—John Barrow’s first connection with the Quarterly —Robert Southey—Appearance of No. 4. page 139

CHAPTER VIII. PUBLISHING BUSINESS—THE ‘QUARTERLY’—CONSTABLE AND BALLANTYNE.

Murray’s and Ballantyne’s joint interests—Financial difficulties—Murray’s remonstrances—Ballantyne’s reckless speculations—And disregard of Murray’s advice—Revival of Murray’s business with Constable—Publication of the ‘Lady of the Lake’—Murray excluded from his promised share of it—Transfers his Edinburgh agency to Mr. William Blackwood—Publication of No. 5 of the Quarterly —Southey’s ‘Life of Nelson’—Unpunctuality of the Review —Effect on Murray’s health—Letter from I. D’Israeli—Gifford’s review of ‘The Daughters of Isenberg’—His letter to Miss Palmer—Article on Oxford and Coplestone—Dispute between Murray and Gifford—Attacks on the Edinburgh Review by the Quarterly —Murray’s disapproval of them—The Ballantynes and Constables applying for money—Nos. 8 and 9 of the Review —Southey’s Publications—Letters from Scott—His review of the ‘Curse of Kehama’—Southey’s dependence on the Quarterly —His letter to Mr. Wynn. page 170

CHAPTER IX. MURRAY AND GIFFORD—BALLANTYNE AND CONSTABLE—PROSPERITY OF THE ‘QUARTERLY.’

Increasing friendship between Murray and Gifford—Gifford’s opinion of humorous articles—Mr. Pillans—Macvey Napier—Gifford’s feeble health—Murray’s financial difficulties—Remonstrates with Ballantyne—Resigns his share of the ‘Edinburgh Annual Register’—Correspondence with, and dissociation from Constable— Quarterly Review No. 12—Southey’s review of James Montgomery’s Poems—Southey’s dislike of editorial supervision—Canning’s and Ellis’ review of Fox’s Life—W. S. Landor’s remarks upon the ‘Life of Fox’—Gifford’s severe remarks on Charles Lamb—His remorse— Quarterly Review No. 14—The Rev. H. Phillpotts—Southey on the French Revolution—Murray’s offer to Southey of 1000 guineas for his poem. page 192

CHAPTER X. LORD BYRON’S WORKS, 1812 TO 1814.

Lord Byron’s first acquaintance with Mr. Murray—Mr. Dallas—Acceptance of ‘Childe Harold’—Byron’s visits to Fleet Street—Murray’s letters to Byron—Gifford’s opinion of the Poem—Publication of ‘Childe Harold’—Its immediate success—Byron’s presentation to the Prince of Wales—Murray effects a reconciliation between Byron and Scott—Letters to and from Scott—The address at the opening of Drury Lane Theatre—Murray’s letters to Byron—The ‘Waltz’—Publication of ‘The Giaour,’ ‘Bride of Abydos’ and ‘Corsair’—Opinions of Frere and Gifford—Murray’s correspondence with Byron—Statement in the Courier as to money received by Byron for his works—Mr. Dallas’s and Murray’s replies thereto—Ode to Napoleon—‘Lara’ and ‘Jacqueline’. page 205

CHAPTER XI. MR. MURRAY’S REMOVAL TO 50 ALBEMARLE STREET.

Murray’s removal to Albemarle Street—Miller’s unfriendly behaviour—Progress of the Quarterly —Miscellaneous publications—D’Israeli’s ‘Calamities of Authors’—Letters from Scott and Southey— Southey’s opinions on the patronage of literature—His ‘Life of Nelson’—Proposes a ‘History of the Peninsular War’—Mungo Park’s ‘Last Travels’—Correspondence with Mr. Whishaw—Scott’s embarrassments—Recklessness of the Ballantynes—Scott applies to Murray for a loan—Publication of ‘Waverley’—Mystery of the authorship—Scott’s continued interest in the Quarterly —First idea of Stories from the History of Scotland’—Penrose’s Journal—Mr. Murray’s proposed trip to France—His letters to Mrs. Murray—Education of his son—Announcement of Lord Byron’s engagement—Publication of ‘The Lord of the Isles’—Mr. Murray’s visit to Newstead Abbey—Letter to Lord Byron—Murray in Edinburgh—Mr. William Blackwood—Dugald Stewart—Visit to Abbotsford—Letter to Lord Byron—Letters from Blackwood—The ‘Vision of Don Roderick’—Progress of the Quarterly —Scott and Southey as contributors—Croker—Ellis, &c.—Correspondence with Gifford—Death of Nancy, Gifford’s housekeeper. page 233

CHAPTER XII. MURRAY’S DRAWING-ROOM—BYRON AND SCOTT—WORKS PUBLISHED IN 1815—THE ‘QUARTERLY.’

Murray’s drawing-room in Albemarle Street—A literary centre—George Ticknor’s account of it—Croker’s poem ‘Talavera’—Madame de Staël—First meeting of Byron and Scott—Recollections of the present Mr. Murray—Napoleon’s escape from Elba—Mr. Murray’s encounter with thieves—Waterloo—Mr. Blackwood’s letter—Suppression of an article written for the Edinburgh —Ticknor’s account of a dinner in Albemarle Street—Mr. Murray’s collection of portraits of authors—Mr. Scott’s visit to Brussels, Waterloo, &c.—Mr. Murray’s visit to Paris with Mr. Basevi—Foreign soldiers in Paris—Their behaviour—Blowing up the Pont de Jena—Miss H. M. Williams—Review of British Army—Sights of Paris—Suard—Sismondi—Gérard—Benjamin Constant—Humboldt—Return home—‘Paul’s Letters to his Kinsfolk’—‘Mungo Park’s Travels’—Miscellaneous publications—Personal correspondence of Bonaparte—Miss H. M. Williams’ ‘Narrative of Events in France’—D’Israeli’s opinion of it—Benjamin Constant’s work on France—Jane Austen’s Novels—Mr. Malthus’ works—Rev. P. Elmsley, his criticism of the Quarterly —Gifford and Southey—Scott and Constable—Elphinstone’s ‘Cabul’—Murray’s letter to Scott—General literary gossip—Maturin—Letters from W. Scott. page 264

CHAPTER XIII. CHARLES MATURIN—S. T. COLERIDGE—LEIGH HUNT—MADAME DE STAËL—MRS. GRAHAM.

Charles Maturin—His early career—His early publications—And application to W. Scott—Performance of ‘Bertram’ at Drury Lane—Published by Murray—Maturin’s letters to Murray—‘Manuel, a Tragedy’—Murray’s letter to Byron—Death of Maturin—S .T. Coleridge—Correspondence about his translation of ‘Faust’—That work not published—Renewal of the connection—‘Glycine,’ ‘Remorse,’’Christabel,’ ‘Zapolya,’ and other works—Scheme for a review of old books—Further correspondence—Leigh Hunt—Asked to contribute to the Quarterly —Story of ‘Rimini’—Murray’s letters to Byron and Hunt—Negociations between Murray and Leigh Hunt—Madame de Staël—Publication of ‘L’Allemagne’—Gifford’s and Byron’s opinion of her—Madame de Staël’s letters to Murray—Offer of her work on the French Revolution to him—Difficulty about terms—Her death—Letter of the Hon. J. W. Ward—Letter from Mrs. Graham—Anecdote of Mrs. Graham and Mr. Croker. page 292

CHAPTER XIV. THOMAS CAMPBELL—JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE—JAMES HOGG, ETC.

Thomas Campbell—His early works—Acquaintance with Murray—‘Selections from the British Poets’—Letters to Murray—Proposed Magazine—And Series of Ancient Classics—Close friendship between Campbell and Murray—Murray undertakes to publish the ‘Selections from British Poets’—Campbell’s explanation of the work—‘Gertrude of Wyoming’—Scott reviews Campbell’s poems in the Quarterly —Campbell’s Lectures at the Royal Institution—Delay in preparing his work—Its completion and publication—Campbell’s satisfaction with Murray’s treatment of him—Increase of Murray’s business—Dealings with Gifford—Mr. J. C. Hobhouse—His ‘Journey to Albania’—Isaac D’Israeli’s ‘Character of James I.’—Croker’s ‘Stories for Children’—‘The division of profits—Sir John Malcolm—Increasing number of poems submitted to Mr. Murray—John Wilson’s ‘City of the Plague’—James Hogg—His works—And letters to Murray—The ‘Repository’—Correspondence with Murray—Hogg asks Murray to find a wife for him. page 322

CHAPTER XV. LORD BYRON’S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY—continued.

Lord Byron’s marriage—Letters from Mr. Murray during the honey-moon—Mr. Fazakerly’s interview with Bonaparte—Byron’s pecuniary embarrassments—Murray’s offers of assistance—‘Siege of Corinth’—‘Parisina’—Byron refuses remuneration—Pressed to give the money to Godwin, Maturin, and Coleridge—Murray’s remonstrance—Gifford’s opinion of the ‘Siege of Corinth’ and Mr. D’Israeli’s—Byron leaves England—Sale of his Library—The ‘Sketch from Private Life’—Mr. Sharon Turner’s legal opinion—Letter from Dr. Polidori to Murray—Murray’s letter on the arrival of the MS. of ‘Childe Harold,’ Canto III.—His offer of terms—Letters from Mrs. Leigh—Murray’s letters about ‘Tales of my Landlord’—‘Armata’—Sir J. Malcolm— ‘Antar’s Tales,’ &c.—Letter from Sharon Turner—Scott’s letters about his review of ‘Childe Harold’ in the Quarterly —Letters from Lady Byron, Lady Caroline Lamb, and Mrs. Graham—‘Manfred’—Murray’s letter to Byron—‘Manuscrit venu de Ste. Helene’—Southey’s ‘Wat Tyler’—Fourth Canto of ‘Childe Harold’—Letter from Murray—Death of Mme. de Staël, &c.—Difference between Lord Byron and Murray—Letter from Mr. Hobhouse. page 350

CHAPTER XVI. LORD BYRON’S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY—continued—THE DEATH OF ALLEGRA, ETC.

‘Beppo’—Letters from Murray—Signor Missiaglia—Dr. Aglietti’s collection of letters—Lady M. Wortley Montagu—Frere’s opinion of ‘Beppo’—Murray urges Byron to turn his attention to prose writings—Uniform edition of his Works—‘Whistlecraft’—Mr. Hobhouse—Death of M. G. Lewis—Letter from Mrs. Leigh—Letter from Murray—His visit to Abbotsford—Byron’s proposed ‘Tales’— Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine —Letters from Lord Byron—His opinions of Isaac D’Israeli’s Works—‘Don Juan’—Murray’s remonstrances and suggestions—Mr. D. Kinnaird’s letter about the purchase of ‘Mazeppa’ and ‘Don Juan’—Letters about Lord Byron and ‘Don Juan’ from Gifford, Blackwood, Miss Waldie and John Barrow—Mr. S. Turner’s opinion concerning the copyright—Opinions of Mr. Bell and Mr. Shadwell—The copyright maintained—Byron’s intention of going to S. America—Letter from Mr. Hobhouse—Mr. Hobhouse in Newgate—Letters from Lady Bessborough and Lady Caroline Lamb—Byron sends Cantos III. and IV. of ‘Don Juan’ and other MSS.—‘Morgante Maggiore’—Gifford’s opinion—Mr. Croker’s letter to Murray about ‘Don Juan’—‘My boy Hobby O!’—Hobhouse’s letter about the Cambridge Whig Club—Byron’s controversy with the Rev. W. L. Bowles—Letter from Mr. Hobhouse—‘Sardanapalus’—‘The Two Foscari’—‘Cain’—Mr. Gifford’s opinion—Letter from Murray to Lord Byron—First mention of Byron’s Memoirs—Letter from Mr. Hobhouse—Publication and piracy of ‘Cain’—Severe criticisms—Sir W. Scott’s opinion—Byron’s letter on the subject—Legal proceedings—Mr. Archibald Murray visits Byron at Pisa—Death of Allegra—Murray’s correspondence with Mr. Cunningham. page 392

CHAPTER XVII. BYRON’S DEATH AND THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS MEMOIRS.

Byron’s last letter to Murray—His death—Letter of the Dean of Westminster respecting the burial in the Abbey—The funeral—Letter from Lady C. Lamb—Her correspondence with Byron—The story of the Byron Memoirs—The MS. given to Moore—Who sold it to Murray—On Byron’s death they become Murray’s absolute property—Letter from Barrow—The destruction of the MS.—Mrs. Leigh’s letter to Mr. Hodgson—Mr. Murray’s letter to Mr. R. Wilmot Horton on the destruction of the Memoirs—Letter from Mr. T. Mitchell—‘Medwin’s Conversations’—Letter from Mr. Sharon Turner—Moore’s preparations for a Life of Byron. page 433

CHAPTER XVIII. BLACKWOOD AND MURRAY—SCOTT’S NOVELS.

Murray’s alliance with Blackwood—Blackwood’s position in Edinburgh—Letter from Blackwood— ‘Guy Mannering’—‘The Lord of the Isles’—‘The Field of Waterloo’—‘Siege of Corinth’ and ‘Parisina’—Blackwood’s dinner party—His association with Scott—His aspirations—Letter to Murray—Authorship of ‘Waverley Novels’—Blackwood’s interviews with Ballantyne—Mysterious negotiations—“A Blind Bargain”—Murray and Blackwood accept the proposal—Unaccountable delays—The secret of the authorship of the Novels—Ballantyne’s pretexts and embarrassments—Blackwood’s anxiety—Croker’s visit to Edinburgh—Letter from Blackwood—The Novel at last—‘The Black Dwarf’—Letter from Ballantyne to Blackwood—Pecuniary straits of Scott and Ballantyne—Publication of ‘Tales of my Landlord’—Letters from Murray to Blackwood, and to Scott—Scott’s review of the ‘Tales of my Landlord’ in the Quarterly —Increased mystery concerning the authorship—The Prince Regent’s direct enquiry, and Scott’s answer. page 452

CHAPTER XIX. BLACKWOOD’S ‘EDINBURGH REVIEW’—TERMINATION OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN MURRAY AND BLACKWOOD.

Origin of Blackwood’s Magazine —Murray’s share in it—Letters from Blackwood—Thomas Pringle and James Cleghorn—Opposition of Constable—John Wilson and J. G. Lockhart—Sensation created by the ‘Chaldee MS.’—Authorship of the article—Murray’s remonstrances with Blackwood—Attacks on ‘The Cockney School of Poetry’—Murray’s renewed protests—His correspondence with Blackwood on the subject—Hazlitt’s threatened action—‘Hypocrisy Unveiled’—Injudicious conduct of Lockhart and Wilson—Murray’s vexation at the incident—Anonymous pamphlet against Murray—Progress of Hazlitt’s action—Settlement of the dispute—Continued personalities in the Magazine —‘Peter’s Letters to his Kinsfolk’—Murray’s renewed protests—He withdraws from the Magazine—Oliver and Boyd become Murray’s Edinburgh agents. page 475

ILLUSTRATIONS. Portrait of John Murray I. Frontispiece Lord and Lady Byron. From an original Sketch by Lady Caroline Lamb. To face page 350

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY.

CHAPTER I. JOHN MACMURRAY OR MURRAY.

The publishing house of Murray dates from the year 1768, in which year John MacMurray, a lieutenant of Marines, having retired from the service on half-pay, purchased the bookselling business of William Sandby, at the sign of the ‘Ship,’ No. 32, Fleet Street, opposite St. Dunstan’s Church. Mr. Sandby afterwards became a banker in the old established firm of Snow and Co., in the Strand.

John MacMurray was descended from the Murrays of Athol. His uncle, Colonel Murray, was “out” in the rising of 1715, under the Earl of Mar; served under the Marquis of Tullibardine, the son of his chief, the Duke of Athol, and led a regiment in the abortive fight of Sheriff-muir. After the rebellion against the Hanoverian dynasty had been suppressed, Colonel Murray retired to France, where he served under the exiled Duke of Ormonde, who had attached himself to the Stuart Court.

The Colonel’s brother Robert followed a safer course. He prefixed the “Mac” to his name; settled in Edinburgh; adopted the law as a profession, and became a writer to the Signet. He had a family of three daughters, Catherine, Robina, and Mary Anne; and two sons, Andrew and John. Of the two sons, Andrew, the elder, took Orders. He first officiated at Kirkcaldy, and afterwards at Duffus, near Elgin, where he died. In 1780, we find Mr. John Murray writing to the widow at Duffus, condoling with her on a double sorrow—the death of her husband, and the capture of her son Archie, who had been captured by the Spaniards while on his voyage to India.

John, the younger of Robert McMurray’s sons, was born at Edinburgh in 1745. After receiving a good general education, he entered the Royal Marines under the special patronage of Sir George Yonge, Bart.,* a well-known official of the last century, and his commission as second lieutenant was dated the 24th of June, 1762. At that time England was at war with France and Austria. Pitt, Earl of Chatham, was Secretary of State and virtually Prime Minister, but Pitt resigned in 1762, and Lord Bute succeeded him. Bute’s thoughts were constantly directed towards peace; and the “Seven Years’ War,” as it was called, came to an end with the treaty of Paris in 1763. There was now little for the English Navy to do. Most of the war ships were laid up in ordinary; the seamen were discharged, and the Marines took up quarters in their respective barracks.

Young MacMurray was quartered at Chatham. In the Army List for 1768 he was registered as second lieutenant on full pay; and in point of seniority he was No. 34 on the list. Six years had come and gone since the Treaty of Paris had been concluded, and still he remained in the same rank as before. The monotony of this life to a young man of an active and energetic temperament

* Sir George Yonge was Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, and subsequently Secretary at War; he died in 1812.

became almost intolerable. At length he contemplated making a sudden change. He would retire on half-pay at the age of twenty-three, and become a London bookseller!

It is not improbable that he was induced to embark on his proposed enterprise by his recent marriage with Nancy Wemyss, daughter of Captain Wemyss, then residing at Brompton, near Chatham. Young MacMurray must have married for love and not for money, as Captain Wemyss was quite unable to assist his son-in-law with capital for his new undertaking. The captain was laid up in ordinary, like his ship, and was a victim to gout and chalk-stones.*

While residing at Chatham, MacMurray renewed his acquaintance with William Falconer, the poet, who, like himself, was a native of Edinburgh. Falconer had been for a long time engaged in the merchant service, but in 1762, through the patronage of the Duke of York, to whom he had dedicated his poem “The Shipwreck,” he obtained the rank of midshipman in the Royal Navy. After the termination of the war with France in that year his ship was laid up in ordinary at Chatham; and then he fell in with his old Edinburgh friend John MacMurray, and to relieve his weary hours, began the preparation of his well-known ‘Universal Marine Dictionary.’

When the work had been completed, and while it was still in the hands of the publisher, Falconer accepted the

* In one of Captain Wemyss’s letters to Mr. MacMurray (23 Aug., 1765) he said: “If ever you come to where I am, you will almost see the devil upon two sticks. I can just make a shift at present to go down to dock and up again; afterwards to my couch like all other animals. My middle finger has altered its position from Dunnose Point to the exact make and form of Lyons Rump at the Cape of Good Hope. I save all the chalk that comes out of it, and will send it on a venture to Maryland, where the article is a scarce commodity.”

position of purser of the Aurora frigate, ordered to proceed to India. In addition to this office he was appointed private secretary to Messrs. Vansittart, Scrofton and Forde, who were proceeding to India in the Aurora, to supervise the affairs of the East India Company. The ship was already at Dover, with Falconer on board, when he received the following letter from Lieutenant MacMurray, at Brompton, in which he offered to take him as a partner in the business he was about to commence. The letter is worthy of being quoted, as showing the preliminaries of the establishment of the publishing house of Murray.

Lieutenant MacMurray to Mr. William Falconer, now at Dover.

Brompton, Kent, October 16th, 1768. Dear Will,

Since I saw you, I have had the intention of embarking in a scheme that I think will prove successful, and in the progress of which I had an eye towards your participating. Mr. Sandby, Bookseller, opposite St. Dunstan’s Church, Fleet Street, has entered into company with Snow and Denne, Bankers. I was introduced to this gentleman about a week ago, upon an advantageous offer of succeeding him in his old business; which, by the advice of my friends, I propose to accept. Now, although I have little reason to fear success by myself in this undertaking, yet I think so many additional advantages would accrue to us both, were your forces and mine joined, that I cannot help mentioning it to you, and making you the offer of entering into company.

He resigns to me the lease of the house, the goodwill &c.; and I only take his bound stock, and fixtures, at a fair appraisement, which will not amount to much beyond £400, and which, if ever I mean to part with, cannot fail to bring in nearly the same sum. The shop has been long established in the Trade; it retains a good many old customers; and I am to be ushered immediately into public notice by the sale of a new edition of ‘Lord Lyttelton’s ‘Dialogues;’ and afterwards by a like edition of his ‘History.’ These Works I shall sell by commission, upon a certain profit, without risque; and Mr. Sandby has promised to continue to me, always, his good offices and recommendations.

These are the general outlines; and if you entertain a notion that the conjunction will suit you, advise me, and you shall be assumed upon equal terms; for I write to you before the affair is finally settled; not that I shall refuse it if you don’t concur (for I am determined on the trial by myself); but that I think it will turn out better were we joined; and this consideration alone prompts me to write to you. Many Blockheads in the Trade are making fortunes; and did we not succeed as well as they, I think it must be imputed only to ourselves. Make Mrs. McMurray’s compliments and mine to Mrs. Falconer; we hope she has reaped much benefit from the saltwater bath. Consider what I have proposed; and send me your answer soon. Be assured in the meantime, that I remain, Dear Sir,

Your affectionate and humble servant, John McMurray .

P.S.—My advisers and directors in this affair have been Thomas Cumming, Esq., Mr. Archibald Paxton, Mr. James Paterson of Essex House, and Messrs. J. and W. Richardson, Printers. These, after deliberate reflection, have unanimously thought that I should accept Mr. Sandby’s offer.

Falconer’s answer to this letter has not been preserved. Perhaps he refused MacMurray’s offer, being already provided, as he thought, with a certain income. At all events, he sailed from Dover in the Aurora frigate. The vessel touched at the Cape; set sail again, and was never afterwards heard of. It is supposed that she was either burnt at sea, or driven northward by a storm and wrecked on the Madagascar coast. Falconer intended to have prefixed some complimentary lines to Mr. Murray to the third edition of ‘The Shipwreck,’ but they were omitted in the hurry of leaving London and England for India. The ‘Universal Marine Dictionary’ was published by Millar at the end of 1769; and it is pleasant to have to relate of that gentleman, that he generously bestowed upon Falconer’s widow many sums not stipulated for in his contract with the author.

Notwithstanding the failure of MacMurray to obtain the aid of Falconer in his partnership, he completed alone his contract with Mr. Sandby. His father at Edinburgh supplied him with the necessary capital, and he began the bookselling business in November 1768. He dropped the prefix “Mac” from his surname; put a ship in full sail at the head of his invoices; and announced himself to the public in the following terms:

“John Murray (successor to Mr. Sandby), Bookseller and Stationer, at No. 32, over against St. Dunstan’s Church, in Fleet Street, London, sells all new Books and Publications. Fits up Public or Private Libraries in the neatest manner with Books of the choicest Editions, the best Print, and the richest Bindings. Also, executes East India or foreign Commissions by an assortment of Books and Stationary suited to the Market or Purpose for which it is destined; all at the most reasonable rates.”

Among the first books he issued were new editions of Lord Lyttelton’s ‘Dialogues of the Dead,’ and of his ‘History of King Henry the Second,’ in stately quarto volumes, as well as of Walpole’s ‘Castle of Otranto.’ He was well supported by his friends, and especially by his old brother officers, and we find many letters from all parts of the world requesting him to send consignments of books and magazines, the choice of which was, in many cases left entirely to his own discretion. In 1769 he received a letter from General Sir Robert Gordon, then in India, who informed him that he had recommended him to many of his comrades.

Sir R. Gordon to John Murray.

“Brigadier-General Wedderburn has not forgotten his old school-fellow, J. McMurray. Send me British news, and inform me of all political and other affairs at home.” [He also added that Colonel Mackenzie, another old friend, is to be his patron.] “I hope,” says Sir R. Gordon, in another letter, “that you find more profit and pleasure from your new employment than from that of the sword, which latter, you may remember, I endeavoured to dissuade you from returning to; but a little trial, and some further experience, at your time of life, cannot hurt you. . . . My best compliments to Mrs. Murray, who I suppose will not be sorry for your laying aside the wild Highland ‘Mac’ as unfashionable and even dangerous in the circuit of Wilkes’s mob; but that, I am convinced, was your smallest consideration.”

The friendship of Falconer with MacMurray was instrumental in introducing the new bookseller to several distinguished authors. John Cartwright, afterwards Major, when on board H.M.S. Wasp, made the acquaintance of Falconer, and through him of MacMurray and others. It was no doubt through the recommendation of John Cartwright that his brother, the Rev. Dr. Cartwright, then of Marnham, near Tuxford, published through Murray, in 1770, his legendary tale of ‘Armine and Elvira.’ The poem was greatly admired, and went through seven editions in little more than a year. Before it came out, however Dr. Cartwright was very apprehensive as to its fate.

Dr. Cartwright to John Murray.

“I shall be glad to know what is said of it. You will excuse the trouble I give you in this affair, especially when you consider the paternal anxiety that a man must unavoidably feel for the first brat that he publicly owns. I forgot to write to Taylor [the printer], as I mentioned in my last, the alteration I wanted him to make was about the head and hair of the lover; as it is at present, he looks more like a Butcher’s boy than the son of an Earl in disguise.”

Dr. Cartwright, however, was much more distinguished as an inventor than as a poet. In the letter from which the above extract is made he asks Mr. Murray to go and see in Soho a machine, which he describes. He must already have been thinking of his great invention. In 1785, he took out his patent for a Power Loom, which, together with the Steam Engine of James Watt, has done so much to establish the manufacturing supremacy of Great Britain.

Dr. Cartwright having begun his academical studies at University College, Oxford, under the private tuition of Dr. John Langhorne, it was natural that Langhorne, when he had completed his translation from the French of the ‘Fables of Florian,’ should desire to publish the work through Mr. Murray, who had been so successful with the legendary tale of his pupil. More notable, however, was Langhorne’s translation of ‘Plutarch’s Lives,’ also published by Murray, which superseded North’s translation from the French of Amyot, and eventually became a standard work.

Shortly after Mr. Murray began business, he became straitened for money. The nature of his business, and especially his consignments to distant lands, rendered it necessary for him to give long credit, while the expense and the risk of bringing out new books, added a fresh strain on his resources. In these circumstances, he applied to his friend Mr. William Kerr, Surveyor of the General Post Office for Scotland, for a loan. Mr. Kerr responded in a kindly letter. Though he could not lend much at the time, he sent Mr. Murray £150, “lest he might be prejudiced for want of it.” Mr. Kerr also sent some advice, which he thought might be useful for the young married couple.

Mr. Wm. Kerr to John Murray.

“Conduct your business with activity, industry, and unremitting attention, without being irritated or vexed by unavoidable accidents or incidents.” [He also urged the necessity of domestic economy.] “You should know what the expense of your family is, once every week. That will be the key to you in most of your other expenses. If, in the course of my travels, any such thing as an author of repute should fall in my way, I will recommend him to you. Everything helps. I am glad you are established upon half-pay. That is always a sure little card, whatever happens.”

In order to extend his business to better advantage, Mr. Murray endeavoured to form connections with booksellers in Ireland and Scotland. He employed Thomas Cumming, a Quaker mentioned in Boswell’s ‘Life of Johnson,’ who had been one of his advisers as to the purchase of Mr. Sandby’s business, to push the trade in Ireland. In 1769 Cumming went to Dublin to take up an official position. While there, he endeavoured to promote his friend’s bookselling connection.

Mr. T. Cumming to John Murray.

“On receipt of thine I constantly applied to Alderman Faulkener, and showed him the first Fable of Florian, but he told me that he would not give a shilling for any original copy whatever, as there is no law or even custom to secure any property in books in this kingdom [Ireland]. From him, I went directly to Smith and afterwards to Bradley, &c. They all gave me the same answer . . . Sorry, and very sorry I am, that I cannot send a better account of the first commission thou hast favoured me with here. Thou may’st believe that I set about it with a perfect zeal, not lessened from the consideration of the troubles thou hast on my account, and the favours I so constantly receive from thee; nor certainly that my good friend Dr. Langhorne was not altogether out of the question. None of the trade here will transport books at their own risque. This is not a reading, but a hard-drinking city; 200 or 250 are as many as a bookseller, except it be an extraordinary work indeed, ever throws off at an impression.”

He, however, seems to have been more fortunate with the bookseller Ewing, who gave twenty guineas for the right of republishing the ‘Florian’ in Dublin, as well as for another book—both translations from the French.

In 1770, Mr. Murray made the acquaintance of Professor John Millar of Glasgow, and of the Rev. John Whitaker of Manchester. When Mr. Millar was appointed Professor of Law in 1761, the students attending his class seldom amounted to more than four or five, but, by a popular and incisive style of lecturing, he eventually created an extensive interest in the subject, and his class-room became filled with eager students. Among his pupils were Lord Jeffrey, Lord Adam, and the Earl of Lauderdale. The Professor was first introduced to Mr. Murray by Dr. Moore, father of Sir John Moore, who fell at Corunna. In his letter to the publisher he said that the MS. of Professor Millar’s work had been read and revised by David Hume and Dr. Robison of Edinburgh, and that they much approved of it and recommended its publication. Mr. Murray was inclined to comply with their request, and eventually accepted the work, giving the author 100 guineas for the first edition. It was entitled ‘Observations concerning the Distinction of Ranks in Society.’

Before the work appeared there was some correspondence between the publisher and the author about a Preface. Murray wished one to appear, but Millar at first declined.

Prof. Millar to John Murray.

“It has the appearance of puffing. To make a preface to a book appears in the same light as to make a number of bows and scrapes as you enter a room. It always puts me in mind of what Hamlet says to the player who acts the part of the murderer—‘Leave off thy damnable faces, and begin.’ However, I should think it very improper to stick to my opinion in a matter of this sort, which it seems Mr. Murray thinks of importance, and which he imagines will affect the sale of the performance.”

Professor Millar at length agreed to write the Preface, and the work was published, in 1771, in a splendid quarto volume. It proved successful, and a second edition was called for in six months. In all, the work went through four editions,* and the publisher, in selecting such a work, had evidently made a good hit.

His next venture, with the Rev. John Whitaker of Manchester, was not so satisfactory. Mr. Murray undertook to publish the first volume of his ‘History of Manchester’ in 1771, but the book was a lingerer on his shelves and did not sell.

“I am sorry,” said Whitaker, in June 1773, “that the quarto edition moves off slowly. But I expected nothing else. It is not a work calculated for an extempore sale, but a slowly growing one. This, however, is said principally with reference to the nation at large. For here [in Manchester], in this town of trade and merchandize, no reputation would give a large sale to any publication that required the task of thinking; and few or none of the volumes, I believe, have begun to be purchased.”

* A few years later, in 1787, Mr. Murray published for the same author his ‘Historical View of the English Government, from the settlement of the Saxons in Britain to the Accession of the House of Stuart.’ This work was eulogized by Fox, Jeffrey, Brougham, Hallam and Mackintosh.

Mr. Murray, in his desire to promote the success of the work, sent a copy to his friend Dr. Moore, then a young man, residing with the Duke of Hamilton at La Chatelaine, near Geneva. Moore’s answer was as follows (1st July, 1773):—

“I am sorry to perceive that the ‘Annual Register’ and ‘Broomfield’ the Surgeon’s late book, are not in the list, because I mentioned them both in my note; and I am equally surprised to see Whitaker’s ‘History of Manchester’ there. Dear John, what do you think the Duke of Hamilton or I have to do with Manchester? After this specimen of your taste in books, I beg that you will in future send only what is written for; or, if you insist upon making a small addition, pray take the advice of your friend Dr. Langhorne, and neither consult your own taste, a brother bookseller, or a shopkeeper in the City; for I suspect these last have been consulted when you chose the ‘History of Manchester’!”*

Dr. Gilbert Stuart, author of a ‘Discourse on the Government and Laws of England,’ had started the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, of which Murray was the London publisher as well as part proprietor. But the magazine did not succeed; it was too full of abuse. Stuart returned to London, and induced Murray to start the English Review. Its principal contributors were Whitaker, Dr. Moore, on his return from abroad, and others, but Stuart was found to be a very unsatisfactory person to deal with, as Isaac D’Israeli has well shown in his ‘Calamities of Authors,’ and Mr. Murray eventually assumed the duties of editor himself.

Mr. Murray not only published the works of others, but became an author himself. He wrote two letters in the

* Dr. Moore was afterwards the author of the novel ‘Zeluco,’ and of many other works, some of them medical, and others relating to his travels abroad.

Morning Chronicle in defence of his old friend Colonel, afterwards Sir Robert Gordon, who had been censured for putting an officer under arrest during the siege of Broach, in which Gordon had led the attack. The Colonel’s brother, Gordon of Gordonstown, wrote to Murray, saying, “Whether you succeed or not, your two letters are admirably written; and you have obtained great merit and reputation for the gallant stand you have made for your friend.”

Colonel Gordon himself wrote a long and cordial letter to Mr. Murray (dated Bombay, 20th August, 1774), giving him his warmest thanks for defending his honour as an officer and a gentleman. “I cannot,” he said, “sufficiently thank you, my dear sir, for the extraordinary zeal, activity, and warmth of friendship, with which you so strenuously supported and defended my cause, and my honour as a soldier, when attacked so injuriously by Colonel Stuart, especially when he was so powerfully supported.”

In 1775, we find Murray in correspondence with Dr. John Gillies of Edinburgh, Historiographer for Scotland, respecting the publication of his translation of ‘Lysias and Isocrates.’

Dr. Gillies to John Murray.

“I had yesterday a letter from Mr. Allan, a very good artist at Rome, who told me that he had met with two excellent busts of Lysias and Isocrates, of which he had taken drawings, and should have them immediately engraved and sent to you at London, which I had desired. As a reader, I have no great regard for ornaments in books myself, but I am persuaded you judged well, as the plates will be of considerable service to the work. I intend setting about a Greek History on the same plan, which is a thing very much wanting to our literature. I fancy you will by this time have obtained a golden cup to drink out of. Silver is good enough for Nabobs, but not for those who protect, make, and unmake them.”

The latter sentence refers to Murray’s defence of Sir Robert Gordon. Dr. Gillies’ works were both published; the translation of ‘Lysias and Isocrates’ in 1778, and his ‘History of Ancient Greece’ a few years later. Mr. Mitford’s ‘History of Greece’—also published by Mr. Murray—appeared about the same time.

Up to this time, Mr. Murray’s success had been very moderate. It was a long uphill fight to establish his reputation as a publisher. He had already brought out some successful works; but the money came slowly in, and his chief difficulty was the want of capital. He was therefore under the necessity of refusing to publish works which might have done something to establish his reputation, and it may accordingly be conceived how delighted he was at learning the probability of his receiving some accession to his fortune.

As early as 1771, he received a letter from his friend, William Kerr of Edinburgh (who had already assisted him), as to the estate of Mount Ross or Ballypeneragh, near Belfast, left by his uncle, who had just died. The estate was to be sold, and the proceeds divided amongst his surviving relatives. On the strength of “this lucky affair,” as Mr. Kerr termed it, he again lent Mr. Murray a further sum of £500, and requested his bond for the amount.

In settling this important matter—proving the will at Dublin, making arrangements for selling the estate, and in the subsequent division of the property,—it was necessary for Mr. Murray to travel frequently from London to Edinburgh, Dublin, and Belfast, and thus in a measure to neglect his business for several years. Indeed he was sometimes absent from London for three months at a time.

By the end of the year 1775 everything was put in order. The estate left by the uncle was sold by Mr. Murray for £17,000; and besides his fourth share of the proceeds, he was allowed £300 for his trouble and expense in managing the affair throughout. The capital he received was at once put into his business; and from this time forward he devoted himself to its extension. He was now able to publish more important works. His prosperity, however, did not advance with rapid strides; and in 1777 we find him writing to his friend Mr. Richardson at Oxford.

John Murray to Mr. Richardson. Dear Jack,

I am fatigued from morning till night about twopenny matters, if any of which is forgotten I am complained of as a man who minds not his business. I pray heaven for a lazy and lucrative office, and then I shall with alacrity turn my shop out of the window.

A curious controversy occurred in 1778 between Mr. Mason, executor of Thomas Gray the poet, and Mr. Murray, who had published a ‘Poetical Miscellany,’ in which were quoted fifty lines from three passages in Gray’s works. Mr. Mason commenced an action against him in the Court of Chancery for printing these lines, as being his property. Mr. Murray published a pamphlet, entitled ‘A Letter to W. Mason, A.M., Precentor of York, concerning his edition of Mr. Gray’s Poems, and the Practices of Booksellers. By a Bookseller.’ The pamphlet was signed “J. Murray, 32, Fleet Street.” The defence was far more vigorous than the attack, and showed Mr. Murray to advantage as an author. He hit straight, and he hit home. Amongst other things, he retorted upon Mr. Mason that he had himself purloined from a publication which was Murray’s actual property, protected by copyright, more lines than Mr. Murray had extracted from the Poems of Gray. This passage Mason had inserted, without permission, in his ‘Memoirs of Gray’: “What trick, what device, what starting-hole cans’t thou now find out, to hide thee from this open and apparent shame?”

“Take a few passages from the Letter:—

“Mr. Gray, whose name as a poet stands deservedly high, had in his lifetime, at first, published his poems as he wrote them, in detached pieces. He received for these no money nor hire. He formally assigned them to no bookseller. His reward was public approbation. And a disinterested pride ‘led him of all other things to despise the idea of being an author professed’ (Mason’s ‘Memoirs of Mr. Gray’)—that is, like his worthy executor, a mercenary one. Mr. Gray, then, like Shakespeare, made a present of his poems to the public. And not making them a property himself, never dreamt that another person was to erect them into a literary estate, to the exclusion of his heirs . . .

“If Mr. Mason prevails in his suit, he shuts the door at once against extracts of all kinds from new publications. If fifty lines are property, one line is property. And whether I find it in a Magazine, Review, or Newspaper, I claim it, and can prosecute for damages. Will you deny that extracts inserted in these publications, so far from injuring authors, occasion their works to be more known, and consequently to be more called for? But besides that the law is unacquainted with the distinction, I contend that the reverse of this position is the truth. For I insist that extracts from new books give sale and currency to periodical publications, without which the latter would instantly perish.

“So far from intending to violate Mr. Mason’s property, I took some pains to guard against it. Different booksellers, who pretended to no exclusive right in the book, had printed the Poems in question before me. I naturally thought that they would not interfere with Mason’s literary property. And from one of their copies did I print my edition, to avoid all cause of controversy or complaint. . . And could I believe that a man, possessed of any degree of candour or generosity, would have proceeded to use legal violence against me in the first instance, after being made acquainted with these particulars of my conduct?”

This pamphlet was only published after Mr. Mason had commenced legal proceedings. When Mr. Murray received notice of them, he at once called upon Mr. Mason to explain the circumstances under which he had published the extracts, and requested him to name the terms on which he would be satisfied. Mr. Mason nevertheless proceeded with his action, and obtained an Injunction to stop the sale of the book of extracts, to the great annoyance of the publisher as well as the public.

What was thought of the matter at the time may be inferred from a conversation which occurred at the house of Mr. Dilly, the publisher, in the presence of Dr. Johnson, Mrs. Knowles “the ingenious Quaker lady,” Miss Seward, the Rev. Dr. Mayo, and the Rev. Mr. Beresford. We take the passage from Boswell’s ‘Life’:—

“Somebody mentioned the Rev. Mr. Mason’s prosecution of Mr. Murray, the bookseller, for having inserted in a collection only fifty lines of Gray’s Poems, of which Mr. Mason had still the exclusive property, under the Statute of Queen Anne; and that Mr. Mason had persevered, notwithstanding his being requested to name his own terms of compensation. Johnson signified his displeasure at Mr. Mason’s conduct very strongly; but added, by way of showing that he was not surprised at it, ‘Mason’s a Whig.’ Mrs. Knowles (not hearing distinctly): ‘What! a prig, Sir?’ Johnson: ‘Worse, Madam; a Whig! But he is both!’”

Mr. Murray’s friend, the Rev. John Whitaker of Manchester, also wrote to him on the subject of Mason’s action.

“I suppose,” he said, “that you have been engaged since I last saw you in your contest with that weak divine (Mason). The Scotch broadsword that you wielded with so much vigour in the defence of your East Indian friend would frighten away the parson with its glitter only.”

Mr. Murray had considerable intercourse with the publishers of Edinburgh, among the chief of whom were Messrs. Creech and Elliot, and by their influence he soon established a connection with the professors of Edinburgh University. Creech, who succeeded Mr. Kincaid in his business in 1773, occupied a shop in the Luckenbooths, facing down the High Street, and commanding a prospect of Aberlady Bay and the north coast of Haddingtonshire. Being situated near the Parliament House—the centre of literary and antiquarian loungers, as well as lawyers—Creech’s place of business was much frequented by the gossipers, and was known as Creech’s Levee. Creech himself, dressed in black-silk breeches, with powdered hair and full of humorous talk, was one of the most conspicuous members of the group. He was also an author, though this was the least of his merits. He was a genuine patron of literature, and gave large sums for the best books of the day.

Charles Elliot’s place of business was in the Parliament Close, near which all the booksellers of Edinburgh then congregated. We introduce him here more especially, as the families of Murray and Elliot were afterwards intimately connected—the son of the one having married the daughter of the other. Elliot was related to the Elliots of Minto, by whom he was patronised and supported. He was one of the first publishers in Scotland who gave large sums for copyright. He gave Mr. Smellie a thousand pounds for his ‘Philosophy of Natural History,’ when only the heads of the chapters were written. He also purchased the ‘First Series of the Practice of Physic’ from Dr. Cullen, and ‘The System of Surgery’ from Professor Bell, at large prices.

Mr. Elliot was one of Mr. Murray’s principal correspondents. The latter sold in London the chief part of the medical and surgical works which the former published in Edinburgh. We find from Mr. Elliot’s letters that he was accustomed to send his parcels of books to London by the Leith fleet, accompanied by an armed convoy. In June 1780, he wrote: “As the fleet sails this evening, and the schooner carries 20 guns, I hope the parcel will be in London in four or five days;” and shortly afterwards: “I am sending you four parcels of books by the Carron, which mounts 22 guns, and sails with the Glasgow of 20 guns.” The reason of the Edinburgh books being conveyed to London guarded by armed ships, was that war was then raging, and that Spain, France, and Holland were united against England. The American Colonies had also rebelled, and Paul Jones, holding their commission, was hovering along the East Coast with three small ships of war and an armed brigantine. It was therefore necessary to protect the goods passing between Leith and London by armed convoys. Sometimes the vessels on their return, were quarantined for a time in Inverkeithing Bay.

Booksellers were then in the practice of interchanging catalogues, and ordering from each other an amount of books of equal value. We find Mr. Elliot sending to Mr. Murray large numbers of Cullen, Bell, Gregory, and Duncan, and writing to him in 1780, “I am about to publish a eulogium on the late great Dr. Alexander Monro, with an account of his Life, Writings, and Discoveries. I mean to make you the publisher in London. I prefer you, as you have already published the Doctor’s ‘Commentaries.’”

Elliot, like other publishers in England and Scotland, was grossly plundered by the Irish pirates, who printed his works and undersold him both in London and Edinburgh. To an Irish publisher, who wished him to sell books printed in Ireland, Elliot wrote in 1783, “I must, however, inform you, that, as an honest man, and conformed to the laws of his country, I cannot receive or encourage Irish books within the Statute of the 8th of Queen Anne.”

It is often said of publishers that they suck the brains of authors; but authors, it seems, sometimes ransack the pockets of publishers. Dr. Cullen was a very successful author and a very thriving physician, but with regard to his authorship, he played a shabby trick upon the publishers as well as on the public. Dr. Cullen had issued three volumes of his ‘Practice of Physic,’ but on the appearance of the fourth, he refused to sell it separately. Mr. Murray had many copies of the first three volumes on his hands, and he, as well as his customers, desired to have the fourth volume to complete the set. Mr. Murray having expostulated without effect, published a pamphlet, entitled, ‘An Author’s Conduct to the Public, Stated in the Behaviour of Dr. William Cullen, His Majesty’s Physician at Edinburgh.’ The sum of his statements amounted to this—that he had upon his hands eighty-four volumes of Dr. Cullen’s ‘Practice of Physic,’ which would prove no better than waste paper if he was not permitted to complete them in sets; and he desired to have the new edition in exchange for the books he had, volume for volume, according to the practice of the trade.

Mr. Murray was, as we have seen, an author himself. One of his most important pamphlets was ‘The Defence of Innes Monro, Esq., Captain in the late 73rd or Lord Macleod’s Regiment of Highlanders, against a charge of plagiarism from the works of Dr. William Thompson, with the original papers on both sides.’ The dispute is not worth reviving, but the whole production shows that Mr. Murray was a master of style, and wielded a powerful pen. In 1780 he began a volume of Annual Intelligence, mostly written by himself, under the title of The London Mercury; but this afterwards gave place to the English Review, of which he was for some time the sole editor.

To return, for a moment, to his personal history. His first wife having died childless, he married again. By his second wife he had three sons and two daughters, two of the sons, born in 1779 and 1781 respectively, died in infancy, while the third, John, born in 1778, is the subject of this Memoir. In 1782 he writes to his friend the Rev. John Whitaker: “We have one son and daughter, the son above four years, and the daughter above two years, both healthy and good-natured.”

In June 1782 Mr. Murray had a paralytic stroke, by which he, for a time, lost the use of his left side, and though he shortly recovered, and continued his work as before, he was aware of his dangerous position. To a friend going to Madeira in September 1791, he wrote: “Whether we shall ever meet again is a matter not easily determined. The stroke by which I suffered in 1782 is only suspended; it will be repeated, and I must fall in the contest.”

In the meantime Mr. Murray made arrangements for the education of his son. He was first sent for a year to the High School of Edinburgh. While there he lived with Mr. Robert Kerr, author of several works on Chemistry and Natural History, published by Mr. Murray. Having passed a year in Edinburgh, the boy returned to London, and after a time was sent to a school at Margate. There he seems to have made some progress. To a friend Mr. Murray wrote: “He promises, I think, to write well, although his master complains a little of his indolence, which I am afraid he inherits from me. If he does not overcome it, it will overcome him.” In a later letter he said: “The school is not the best, but the people are kind to him, and his health leaves no alternative. He writes a good hand, is fond of figures, and is coming forward both in Latin and French. Yet he inherits a spice of indolence, and is a little impatient in his temper. His appearance—open, modest, and manly—is much in his favour. He is grown a good deal, and left us for Margate (after his holiday) as happy as could be expected.”

In the course of the following year, Mr. Murray sent the boy to a well-known school at Gosport, kept by Dr. Burney, one of his old friends. Burney was a native of the North of Ireland, and had originally been called MacBurney, but, like Murray, he dropped the Mac.

While at Dr. Burney’s school, young Murray had the misfortune to lose the sight of his right eye. The writing- master was holding his penknife awkwardly in his hand, point downwards, and while the boy, who was showing up an exercise, stooped to pick up the book which had fallen, the blade ran into his eye and entirely destroyed the sight. To a friend about to proceed to Gosport, Mr. Murray wrote: “Poor John has met with a sad accident, which you will be too soon acquainted with when you reach Gosport. His mother is yet ignorant of it, and I dare not tell her.”

Eventually the boy was brought to London for the purpose of ascertaining whether something might be done by an oculist for the restoration of his sight. But the cornea had been too deeply wounded; the fluid of the eye had escaped; nothing could be done for his relief, and he remained blind in that eye to the end of his life. His father withdrew him from Dr. Burney’s school, and sent him in July 1793 to the Rev. Dr. Roberts, at Loughborough House, Kennington. In committing him to the schoolmaster’s charge, Mr. Murray sent the following introduction:—

“Agreeable to my promise, I commit to you the charge of my son, and, as I mentioned to you in person, I agree to the terms of fifty guineas. The youth has been hitherto well spoken of by the gentleman he has been under. You will find him sensible and candid in the information you may want from him; and if you are kind enough to bestow pains upon him, the obligation on my part will be lasting. The branches to be learnt are these: Latin, French, Arithmetic, Mercantile Accounts, Elocution, History, Geography, Geometry, Astronomy, the Globes, Mathematics, Philosophy, Dancing, and Martial Exercise.”

Certainly, a goodly array of learning, knowledge, and physical training!

To return to the history of Mr. Murray’s publications. Some of his best books were published after the stroke of paralysis which he had sustained, and among them must be mentioned Mitford’s ‘History of Greece,’ Lavater’s work on Physiognomy, and the first instalment of Isaac D’Israeli’s ‘Curiosities of Literature.’

Besides his publication of these and other works, he paid much attention to the English Review, established by him in 1783, which has already been mentioned. He found out literary men, and invited them to contribute to its pages. For instance, we find him writing to Sir Robert Liston, then Secretary to the British Embassy at Turin, asking for his assistance. In his letter, he informed Sir Robert that the publication contained reviews of foreign books, papers on literary news, and accounts of discoveries in arts, science, and manufactures.

In July 1783, we find Mr. Murray taking proceedings at Edinburgh against the publishers of the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ for embodying almost verbatim an abridgment of Dr. Stuart’s ‘History of the Reformation in Scotland,’ and the ‘History of Scotland’ during the reign of Queen Mary. Murray advised his solicitors to apply for an interdict, and to claim compensation. In a later letter, he writes:—

“I think you have done everything in our prosecution that can be done. The act of piracy cannot fail to be established by the comparison of the Encyclopædia with Dr. Stuart’s volumes; and I hope the interdict of Lord Monboddo will stop the sale of the volume complained of until further satisfaction be obtained.”

In a letter to the Rev. Mr. Whitaker, dated the 20th of Dec., 1784, the following passage occurs:

“Poor Dr. Johnson’s remains passed my door for interment this afternoon. They were accompanied by thirteen mourning coaches with four horses each; and after these a cavalcade of the carriages of his friends. He was about to be buried in Westminster Abbey.”

In 1784 the Rev. Alexander Fraser of Kirkhill, near Inverness, communicated to Mr. Murray his intention of publishing the Memoirs of Lord Lovat, the head of his clan. Mr. Fraser’s father had received the Memoirs in manuscript from Lord Lovat, with an injunction to publish them after his death. “My father,” he said, “had occasion to see his Lordship a few nights before his execution, when he again enjoined him to publish the Memoirs.” General Fraser, a prisoner in the Castle of Edinburgh, had requested, for certain reasons, that the publication should be postponed; but the reasons no longer existed, and the Memoirs were soon after published by Mr. Murray, but did not meet with any success.

In 1790 Mr. Murray made the acquaintance of young Leslie, afterwards Sir John Leslie, then tutor in the house of Mr. Wedgwood at Etruria in Staffordshire, and made arrangements with him for publishing the translation of ‘Buffon’s Natural History of Birds,’ which appeared in 1793, in nine octavo volumes. After sending the manuscript to London, Leslie made a tour in Holland and Germany with Mr. Thomas Wedgwood—whose early death he greatly lamented as a loss to science and his country. Josiah Wedgwood, with his ever prominent liberality, conferred an annuity of £150 on John Leslie for the careful instruction which he had given to his sons. The sum he received for Buffon laid the foundation of that pecuniary independence, which his prudent habits enabled him early to attain.

Full of energy, and with the desire to labour, we find Leslie writing to Mr. Murray about a paper on Electricity for the English Review. He next suggested the production of the ‘History of the Discovery, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonization of North America’ on which Mr. Murray ventured to suggest another subject, ‘The History of the European Trade and Settlements in India.’ In 1793 Leslie proposed a ‘Dictionary of Chemistry,’ at three guineas a sheet, a work which he eventually carried out, and in the same year, Mr. Murray published his ‘Essays on Natural Philosophy’ in one volume. It was not until the year 1805 that he was, after considerable opposition, elected to the Professorship of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh; a position in which, through his discoveries in Natural Science, he achieved the greatest eminence.

The publisher went on with his business, sometimes earning, sometimes losing. A cargo of his books was lost by shipwreck on passing from Leith to London. The publication of ‘Lavater on Physiognomy’ in parts, a costly work, largely illustrated, resulted in a heavy loss.

Mr. J. Beddowes, then at Edinburgh, translated for Mr. Murray ‘Scheele’s Essays,’ for which he paid him sixty guineas. “I shall now,” he wrote to Beddowes, “have three works in progress at Edinburgh. Until these are finished I will not be tempted with more adventures, for the success of the best works is precarious.” Murray had much correspondence with Professor Millar of Glasgow as to the publication of his works, and in November 1785 wrote to him:

“I am sorry to say that the generality of authors first apply for a publisher’s offer and afterwards parade it amongst other publishers to get better terms. But as there appears to be both candour and honour in your correspondence, I will give you £100 immediately (without having seen the MS.) and divide profits, you retaining half the copyright.”

About the same time he writes to Dr. R. Robertson, of Hythe, near Southampton:

“I have always found it more difficult to settle accounts with a gentleman author than with a bookseller, although I generally give more liberal terms to the former than to the latter. The reason is, that gentlemen being unacquainted with the nature of bookselling (which, indeed, cannot be taken up in a moment), are constantly suspicious of every charge which they do not understand, and asking explanations about it, which to a bookseller is unnecessary and never required.”

Mr. Murray made frequent visits to Edinburgh, on business as well as pleasure, usually going by land, notwithstanding the badness of the roads and the tediousness of the journey. The war with France was still raging, and the French were endeavouring to seize the merchant vessels passing along the coast, even when accompanied by an armed squadron. In March 1793 Mr. Robert Kerr of Edinburgh, when sending to Mr. Murray his work on Zoology, said,

“My third half-volume is ready, and shall be sent to you as soon as a regular armed convoy is established between Leith and London; for much as I respect the French I am not disposed to favour them with any of my labours gratis.”

The distressed state of trade and the consequent anxieties of conducting his business hastened Mr. Murray’s end. Mr. Samuel Highley was his principal assistant and the correspondent of the firm. In September 1793 Highley wrote to a correspondent: “A severe fit of illness has confined Mr. Murray to his bed for five weeks past. He has also been much distressed by the late failures at Edinburgh.”

The end soon came. On the 6th of November Highley wrote to his correspondent: “Mr. Murray died this day after a long and painful illness, and appointed as executors Dr. G. A. Paxton, Mrs. Murray, and Samuel Highley. The business hereafter will be conducted by Mrs. Murray.” The Rev. Donald Grant, D.D. and George Noble, Esq., were also executors, but the latter did not act.

The income of the property was divided as follows: one half to the education and maintenance of Mr. Murray’s three children, and the other half to his wife so long as she remained a widow. But in the event of her marrying again, her share was to be reduced by one-third and her executorship was to cease.

John Murray began his publishing career at the age of twenty-three. He was twenty-five years in business, and died at the comparatively early age of forty-eight. That publishing books is not always a money-making business may be inferred from the fact that during these twenty-five years he did not, with all his industry, double his capital. Perhaps his last enterprise was his worst—the publication of Lavater’s work on Physiognomy. The engraving of the plates caused the principal part of the loss. The executors put the case to arbitration, and were eventually compelled to pay out of the estate the sum of £3900. The English Review was by no means a paying publication; but on the death of Mr. Murray it passed into other hands.

CHAPTER II. JOHN MURRAY (II.)—BEGINNING OF HIS PUBLISHING CAREER.—ISAAC D’ISRAELI, ETC.

John Murray The Second—the “Anak of Publishers,” according to Lord Byron—was born on the 27th of November, 1778. He was his father’s only surviving son by his second marriage, and being only fifteen at his father’s death, was too young to enter upon the business of the firm, which was carried on by Samuel Highley—the “faithful shopman” mentioned in the elder Murray’s will—for the benefit of his widow and family. What his father thought of him, of his health, spirits, and good nature, will have been seen from the preceding chapter.

Young Murray returned to school, and remained there for about two years longer, until the marriage of his mother to Lieutenant Henry Paget, of the West Norfolk Militia, on the 28th of September, 1795, when he returned to 32, Fleet Street, to take part in the business. Mrs. Paget ceased to be an executor, retired from Fleet Street, and went to live at Bridgenorth with her husband, taking her two daughters—Jane and Mary Anne Murray—to live with her, and receiving from time to time the money necessary for their education.

The executors secured the tenancy of No. 32, Fleet Street, part of the stock and part of the copyrights, for the firm of Murray and Highley, between whom a partner-ship was concluded in 1795, though Murray was still a minor. In the circumstances Mr. Highley of course took the principal share of the management, but though a very respectable person, he was not much of a business man, and being possessed by an almost morbid fear of running any risks, he brought out no new works, took no share in the new books that were published, and it is doubtful whether he looked very sharply after the copyrights belonging to the firm. He was mainly occupied in selling books brought out by other publishers.

The late Mr. Murray had many good friends in India, who continued to send home their orders to the new firm of Murray and Highley. Amongst them were Warren Hastings and Joseph Hume. Hume had taken out with him an assortment of books from the late Mr. Murray, which had proved very useful; and he wrote to Murray and Highley for more. Indeed, he became a regular customer for books.

Meanwhile Murray fretted very much under the careless and indifferent management of Highley. The executors did not like to be troubled with his differences with his partner, and paid very little attention to him or his affairs. Since his mother’s remarriage and removal to Bridgenorth, the young man had literally no one to advise with, and was compelled to buffet with the troubles and difficulties of life alone. Though inexperienced, he had, however, spirit and common sense enough to see that he had but little help to expect from his partner, and the difficulties of his position no doubt contributed to draw forth and develop his own mental energy. He was not a finished scholar, but had acquired a thorough love of knowledge and literature, and a keen perception of the beauties of our great English classics, in which he had been much encouraged by his half-brother Archibald Murray, who became a Purser in the Royal Navy. By acquiring and cultivating a purity of taste, he laid the foundations of that quick discrimination, which, combined with his rapidly growing knowledge of men and authors, rendered him afterwards so useful, and even powerful, in the pursuit of his profession.

Mr. Murray came of age on the 27th of November, 1799; but he was prudent enough to continue with Highley for a few years longer. After four years more, he determined to set himself free to follow his own course, and the innumerable alterations and erasures in his own rough draft of the following letter testify to the pains and care which he bestowed on this momentous step.

John Murray to Mr. Highley.

Great Queen St. Friday, Nov. 19, 1802. Mr. Highley,—

I propose to you that our partnership should be dissolved on the twenty-fifth day of March next: That the disposal of the lease of the house and every other matter of difference that may arise respecting our dissolution shall be determined by arbitrators—each of us to choose one—and that so chosen they shall appoint a third person as umpire whom they may mutually agree upon previous to their entering upon the business:

I am willing to sign a bond to this effect immediately, and I think that I shall be able to determine my arbitrator some day next week.

As I know this proposal to be as fair as one man could make to another in a like situation, and in order to prevent unpleasant altercation or unnecessary discussion, I declare it to be the last with which I intend to trouble you.

I take this opportunity of saying that, however much we may differ upon matters of business, I most sincerely wish you well.

John Murray .

In the end they agreed to draw lots for the house, and Murray had the good fortune to remain at No. 32, Fleet Street. Mr. Highley removed to No. 24 in the same street, and took with him, by agreement, the principal part of the medical works of the firm. Mr. Murray now started on his own account, and began a career of publication almost unrivalled in the history of letters.

Although he consulted many surgeons, Murray never regained the sight of his right eye. “What?” said Chantrey the sculptor to him one day, after a long acquaintance, “are you a brother Cyclops?” To a sculptor, the loss of the sight of one eye must have been a very formidable hindrance, but to a publisher of books, provided he have brains enough, the loss is not nearly so great. As his nephew, Robert Cooke, afterwards said: “Mr. Murray could see sharper with one eye than most other people can with two.”

Before the dissolution of partnership, Mr. Murray had seen the first representation of Colman’s Comedy of “John Bull” at Covent Garden Theatre, and was so fascinated by its “union of wit, sentiment, and humour,” that the day after its representation he wrote to Mr. Colman, and offered him £300 for the copyright. No doubt Mr. Highley would have thought this a rash proceeding.

John Murray to Mr. Colman.

“The truth is that during my minority I have been shackled to a drone of a partner; but the day of emancipation is at hand. On the twenty-fifth of this month (March 1803) I plunge alone into the depths of literary speculation. I am therefore honestly ambitious that my first appearance before the public should be such as will at once stamp my character and respectability. On this account, therefore, I think that your Play would be more advantageous to me than to any other bookseller; and as ‘I am not covetous of Gold,’ I should hope that no trifling consideration will be allowed to prevent my having the honour of being Mr. Colman’s publisher. You see, sir, that I am endeavouring to interest your feelings, both as a Poet and as a Man.”

Mr. Colman replied in a very pleasant letter, thanking Mr. Murray for his very liberal offer.

Mr. Colman to John Murray.

“But,” he added, “I am more pleased (strange as the assertion may be from a poor poet) by the manner of your proposition than by its solidity. . . . When a play has passed the public ordeal, it is the custom to offer the refusal of the copyright to the proprietor of the theatre in which it has been produced; and in addition to considerations of custom, I owe this attention to Mr. Harris on other accounts.”

The result was, that the proprietor of the theatre retained the copyright of “John Bull,” and thereby disappointed Mr. Murray in the publication of the play as his first independent venture in business.

Six days after the dissolution of partnership, Murray addressed the Rev. Edmund Cartwright, already mentioned in the previous chapter, in these terms:—

John Murray to Rev. E. Cartwright.

March 31st, 1803. Dear Sir,

I have much pleasure in acquainting you that my partnership being dissolved, the obstacle which has hitherto prevented me from entering upon any works of merit is now removed, and I should be very happy, if it be agreeable to you, to make some arrangement for the publication of a new edition of ‘Armine and Elvira,’* with a

* The legendary tale of ‘Armine and Elvira’ originally appeared in 1787. Mrs. Fletcher, in her Autobiography, thus refers to the author:—“While visiting Doncaster (in 1788) I incidentally became acquainted with the Rev. Edmund Cartwright, who had lately pub-

selection of your other poems. It has cost me so much more than I could well afford to pay to retain the house of my father, that I am not over-rich at present. But I am willing, if you please to take one half of the risk of publication, and divide with you the profits which may arise when the impression is sold. The actual profit upon so small a work will not be much, but it will serve to keep your name before the world as a favourite poet.

The times, however, were very bad. Money was difficult to be had on any terms, and Mr. Murray had a hard task to call in the money due to Murray and Highley, as well as to collect the sums due to himself. To the Rev. Mr. Hodgson of Market Rasen he wrote:—

“That he had already exceeded the term of credit which he could allow; and really the times press so heavily by reason of taxes, failures, and the stagnation of trade, that he should feel very thankful for an early remittance. Besides, many of the books he had sent to Mr. Hodgson more than a year before had been old and scarce, and that he (Mr. Murray) had already paid for them in ready money.”

Mr. Joseph Hume had not been very prompt in settling his accounts; and Mr. Murray wrote to him accordingly, on the 11th of July, 1804:—

“On the other side is a list of books (amount £92 8s. 6d.), containing all those for which you did me the favour to

lished a legendary tale, ‘Armine and Elvira,’ along with other poems of considerable merit. . . . He was a grave-looking man, considerably turned of forty, of very gentie and engaging manners. He was acquainted with the family with whom we had spent the day, and he accompanied us to their house to pass the evening; and the next day he took us to see some power-looms of his invention—set to work, not by steam or water, but by a large wheel turned by an ox. . . . He honoured me with his confidence and friendship so far as to wish me to become the mother of his five amiable children by uniting my fate to his. I had not confidence in my own worthiness for such a trust, but in refusing it, I neither forfeited his good opinion nor his friendship.”

write: and I trust that they will reach you safely. . . . If in future you could so arrange that my account should be paid by some house in town within six months after the goods are shipped, I shall be perfectly satisfied, and shall execute your orders with much more despatch and pleasure. I mention this, not from any apprehension of not being paid, but because my circumstances will not permit me to give so large an extent of credit. It affords me great pleasure to hear of your advancement; and I trust that your health will enable you to enjoy all the success to which your talents entitle you.”

He was, for the same reason, under the necessity of declining to publish several new works offered to him, especially those dealing with medical and poetical subjects.

On one occasion he wrote to Mr. Bidlake, who asked to have his remaining poems published.

“The threat of invasion, and the magnitude of our taxes, fill the mind with apprehension, and swallow up the sums that have been usually appropriated to literature. . . . I am really so hemmed in by literary engagements, that I do not think I shall be able to publish any more on my own account for some time; and I expect to lose considerably from the present unfavourable aspect of the times.”

Mr. Archibald Constable of Edinburgh, and Messrs. Bell and Bradfute, Mr. Murray’s agents in Edinburgh, were also communicated with as to the settlement of their accounts with Murray and Highley. “I expected,” he said, “to have been able to pay my respects to you both this summer (1803), but my military duties, and the serious aspect of the times, oblige me to remain at home.” What Mr. Murray’s “military duties” were, may be easily explained.

Napoleon Buonaparte had declared war against England. He had arrested and imprisoned about 10,000 British subjects then residing in France. His “Army of England” was then assembled on the heights near Boulogne; and the broad-bottomed boats were in readiness to ferry over the French troops to the shores of England. The most enthusiastic patriotism was exhibited throughout the country. No less than 300,000 men enrolled themselves in volunteer corps and associations. In London alone, the volunteer corps numbered 12,500, at a time when the metropolis contained less than half its present population. They were reviewed in Hyde Park in the summer of 1803; and amongst them was John Murray, Ensign in the 3rd Regiment of Royal London Volunteers.

Although Mr. Murray necessarily gave much of his time to drill and military work, he continued to take increasing interest in his publishing affairs. Being desirous of extending more widely the knowledge of Dr. Jenner’s great discovery of vaccination for the prevention of the ravages of Small-pox, he wrote the following letter to Dr. Ring on the subject:—

Mr. John Murray to Dr. Ring.

August, 1803. Dear Sir,

I am so fully convinced of the advantages that would arise to the cause of vaccination, from any publication from the pen of Dr. Jenner, that I am more than ever surprised that he is not induced to give to the public a less expensive edition of his useful treatise, in a more portable form. At present its size and price preclude it from general circulation, and the consequence is, that it is superseded by numerous other publications, to the authors of which accrue that honour and emolument which otherwise might have rested with the glorious discoverer alone.

Should Dr. Jenner allow himself to be persuaded of the truth of this remark, I should feel myself much flattered to be employed in the execution of a plan which might be made to answer the end that I propose, without occasioning to Dr. Jenner either expense or trouble. I will undertake at my own cost to print a large impression of Dr. Jenner’s work in a popular form, and will cause it to be circulated through the medium of my correspondents, in England, Scotland, Ireland, and the Continent; and when the whole is sold, I will give Dr. Jenner two-thirds of the clear profits. In this proposal I have considered the cause which I should serve and the honour of being Dr. Jenner’s publisher, rather than my own immediate emolument; and I should not feel displeased if it were mentioned to any other bookseller.

At the same time I can assure you with great sincerity, that I do not think there is in the whole trade a more regular or more respectable man than Mr. Hurst; but as I am professedly a Medical Bookseller, I am really anxious to be the publisher of so important a work.

Dr. Jenner’s work does not appear to have been brought out by Mr. Murray, but he published about this time Dr. Graves’s ‘Pharmacopoeia.’ When it was proposed that the name of his late partner Highley should be included in the imprint, Murray objected.

“I cannot,” he said, “suffer my name to stand with his for two reasons—first, because he advertises himself as ‘successor to the late John Murray,’ who died not less than ten years ago, with the intent to make the public believe that I, his son, have either retired from business, or am dead. That this wicked insinuation has had this effect, I have the letters of two or three persons to prove. And secondly,—because he undersells all other publishers at the regular and advertised prices.”

In conclusion, Mr. Murray said:—

“Make the case your own—‘utrum horum mavis accipe.’ However you may determine in this matter, you may rely upon my interest to promote the sale of your work; and I request that you will do me the favour to send me 100 copies as soon as it is ready, for which I will pay you whenever you call upon me.”

Publishers suffered much from the general depression of trade during the war. Among other failures was that of Mr. Murray’s friends, Messrs. G. and J. Robinson. In order to assist them, he corresponded with the booksellers throughout the country, offering to take care of their interests, until the Robinsons had arranged their affairs so as to recommence their business transactions.

Besides his medical works, Mr. Murray sought to extend his connection in bringing out those of a miscellaneous character. He published for Mr. Williams, of Plymouth, his ‘Picturesque Excursions,’ and for Nathaniel Howard, of the same place, his volume of poems. The latter book was to be sold at 5s., and the author expected that the publisher would receive 1s. 6d. profit on every copy sold. It was accordingly necessary to undeceive the over-sanguine author. “What you infer might be the case if I sold every copy at 5s. But when another publisher wants a copy, I sell it to him at three-fifths the price. He sells it to a bookseller in the country, and he perhaps to another, or to a schoolmaster, all of whom must have a certain allowance. You will find a very satisfactory letter on the subject in Boswell’s ‘Life of Johnson.’”

Towards the end of 1803 Mr. Murray published the ‘Revolutionary Plutarch.’ This remarkable work, written by a French officer, but published anonymously, soon passed into a second and third edition. It contained brief memoirs, or sketches drawn by no friendly hand, of all the members of the Buonaparte family, and those who had aided in their rise to the supreme power. It formed, in short, a biographical history of the French Revolution. We gather Mr. Murray’s views about the work from his letter to Messrs. Gilbert and Hodges, booksellers. Dublin:—

John Murray to Messrs. Gilbert and Hodges.

“A recent occurrence in Dublin, respecting the publication of a too favourable account of Buonaparte, has led me to suppose that the volumes of the ‘Revolutionary Plutarch’ will meet with a favourable reception in Ireland; I have therefore doubled the number which you did me the favour to order, in hopes of saving the expense of carriage, should there be a demand for them. They are charged to you at a reduced price, in order to encourage your exertions to promote their circulation. I wish it to be advertised twice in each of your best papers, both morning and evening. I did inclose in the parcel the form of an advertisement; but since that, it has been rendered more attractive by the insertion of the names of the Buonaparte family, and this latter I wish to be used. The work is original; and as it has been written with a view of exhibiting to the minds of the wavering a true portrait of the villainies of the present rulers of the French Republic, in opposition to a work which extols their abilities and brilliant exploits, I think it should be entitled to the patronage of the loyal in Ireland.”

Mr. Murray forwarded a copy of this work to Mr. Addington, whose administration had terminated in the previous May, accompanied by the following letter.

John Murray to Right Hon. H. Addington.

32, Fleet Street, September 5th, 1804. Sir,

The accompanying volumes were written at a time when your judicious administration had roused the patriotic exertions of every citizen. Their object was to exhibit to the public mind a faithful picture of the crimes of the rulers of the French Republic, and to excite against them a just abhorrence. As their quick and extensive circulation leads me to suppose that they may have effected some service, I presume to offer a copy of them to you as the prime cause of it, and as my mite of respect to a truly great man under whose administration I lived with so much confidence and comfort.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient, humble servant, John Murray .

To this Mr. Addington replied as follows:—

Right Hon. Henry Addington to John Murray.

Richmond Park, Oct. 1st, 1804, Sir,

Having been absent from home for several weeks, I did not receive till Saturday last your acceptable present and the letter with which it was accompanied, for each of which you are entitled to my sincere thanks. The publication is highly interesting, and calculated to produce the most useful effects. I cannot forbear adding that I feel the value of those favourable sentiments which you have had the goodness to express towards myself.

I am, Sir, Your obedient, humble servant, Henry Addington .

The work was followed by the ‘Memoirs of Talleyrand’ and the ‘Female Plutarch’; the latter of which Mr. Murray published in conjunction with the Messrs. Longman and Co. These books were not, in his opinion, so satisfactory as the ‘Revolutionary Plutarch.’ In writing to his fellow-publishers he said:—

John Murray to Messrs. Longman.

“I regret that the ‘Memoirs of Talleyrand’ and ‘The Female Plutarch’ have not added to a respectability of which, like yourselves, I am exceedingly tenacious. Indeed, the many improper passages which have been suffered to appear in the volumes alluded to, have subjected my name to aspersions which, I confess, I very little expected to have been the result of a confidence in gentlemen, to whose friendship and liberality upon other occa-sions I feel so much indebted. . . . I propose, with your approval, to omit the improprieties in the ‘Memoirs of Talleyrand.’”

Mr. Murray afterwards got rid of both the ‘Memoirs’ and the ‘Female Plutarch,’ and refused to sell any more copies of the works. He preferred to publish books of a more solid character—Travels, Voyages, medical and philosophical works. In 1805, we find him printing a splendid new edition of ‘Bruce’s Travels,’ in seven volumes octavo, with a Life of the author.

It is necessary here to introduce a name which constantly appears in the records of Mr. Murray’s career, and a friendship which was only interrupted by a series of untoward events to be narrated in a subsequent chapter.

It cannot now be ascertained what was the origin of the acquaintance between the D’Israeli and Murray families. The first John Murray published the first volumes of Isaac D’Israeli’s ‘Curiosities of Literature,’ and though no correspondence between them has been preserved, we find frequent mention of the founder of the house in Isaac D’Israeli’s letters to John Murray the Second. His experiences are held up for his son’s guidance, as for example, when Isaac, urging the young publisher to support some petition to the East India Company, writes, “It was a ground your father trod, and I suppose that connection cannot do you any harm;” or again, when dissuading him from undertaking some work submitted to him, “You can mention to Mr. Harley the fate of Professor Musæus’ ‘Popular Tales,’ which never sold, and how much your father was disappointed.” On another occasion we find D’Israeli, in 1809, inviting his publisher to pay a visit ‘to my father, who will be very glad to see you at Margate.”

The earliest letter which can be found is addressed to the firm of Murray and Highley as follows:—

Mr. Isaac D’Israeli to Messrs. Murray & Highley.

Exeter, March 3rd, 1796. Gentlemen,

I think it very incumbent on me to inform you that a book published by Ridgways, called ‘A Dictionary of Literary Conversation,’ is a mere republication ad verbatim, of many articles from ‘The Curiosities,’ with a very few new articles of their own. The book has sold very rapidly, and is now in a second edition. They threaten another volume. If they go on publishing ‘The Curiosities’ at a cheaper rate, and you tamely submit to it, there is an end of all literary property. I have just now written a note to the Monthly Review and the British Critic to notice this depredation. All this I conceive to be my duty. The work is your own, and not mine. If you act in this affair at all, I shall be glad to know what will be done. If you want any information further, you may write to me.

I am, gentlemen, yours, &c. I. D’Israeli .

What the result of this remonstrance was we have now no means of discovering, but when young John Murray started in business on his own account, his acquaintance with D’Israeli, who was twelve years his senior, soon ripened into an intimate friendship. A very large mass of letters, notes, and scraps of memoranda testify to the constant, almost daily communication which was kept up between them, for D’Israeli, in addition to his own work, very soon became the literary adviser to his friend.

In Oct. 1803, he writes, “By letter from Margate” (where his father was then living) “I find a cutter had yesterday come into the Downs with a number of wounded men and for reinforcements. This does not appear in the Times nor Press this morning. It shows we have sustained loss of men, however, and the action was very hot. I hope to hear to-day that these gun-boats have not escaped us after all.”

In 1804 Mr. D’Israeli was engaged upon a work which is now all but forgotten, and of which Lord Beaconsfield does not seem to have been aware, as he makes no mention of it in the Memoir of his father prefixed to the ‘Curiosities of Literature’ in 1865.

The author, however, as is evident from his constant allusions to it, and his anxiety about its success, attached great importance to this book, which was entitled ‘Flim-Flams! or the Life and Errors of my Uncle, and the Amours of my Aunt, with Illustrations and Obscurities, by Messrs. Tag, Rag, and Bobtail.’ The work is rather ridiculous, and it is difficult now to discern its purpose, or even the humour on which the author would appear to have prided himself. It is slightly in imitation of Sterne; but without his sentiment, wit or humour.

In April 1804, D’Israeli writes:—

Mr D’Israeli to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

The last letter you wrote, was received at a moment that I could not properly attend to it. I am extremely obliged by the real solicitude you have shown on the occasion—nor has it been entirely useless. I have had that proof returned and made two or three additional touches, besides retaining the rejected note of the Edinburgh Review which I like well. You are probably too deeply engaged in serious business at the present moment, to attend to such Nugæ and flim-flams as the world are on the point of being illuminated by.

However, I write this, to give you some hopes. I confided the three sheets printed to two friends, and I have every reason to believe I succeed to the best of my wishes. One writes me, that it will “provoke perpetual laughter and at the same time preserve a great deal of curious information.” I have observed how it worked upon a grave mind (the friend who read carefully the sheets before me). He acknowledges the satire to be very just and much wanted; and is of opinion that a volume annually of the same kind, would be a pleasant companion to the Literati. What I liked better than his opinion—he laughed most seriously! However every year cannot produce such a heap of extravaganzas as I have registered, nor so merry a crew of lunatics, as I shall have the honour of putting into a procession.

As I have written an account of the death of the author—who dies with laughter—whom nothing can revive but the galvanic science of Professor Murray, I must consult you on this before it is printed. I mention that I prefer you to Professor Davy, because by many patient experiments you, to my knowledge, have more than once restored a dead author to life!

There was no avoiding Clarke’s* knowing I was the author, nor the printer. In the present case we must trust to their honour, for, as Mark Antony says—“They are all honourable men!”

Mrs. D’I. is most sensible to your enquiries and has taken it into her profound views that you have gone off† to be married! and though I speak so much in favour of your wisdom, still she thinks it will so end.

Again he writes on the eve of publication: “I think the third volume abounds with that kind of story or incident which will be found entertaining.”

The work appeared in due course in the early part of 1805, but it was never appreciated by the public; it was severely criticised in the Critical Review, and the author’s exaggerated expectations gave place to the deepest disappointment. “An idea has spread abroad,” he writes, “that the F. F. is a libel. Longman and Rees will not suffer the book to lie on their table. I wrote to know if

* Mr. Murray’s head clerk.

† Mr. Murray was then residing at Hartley Row in Hampshire.

the Edinburgh Review really considers it a libel whether we ought not to retain Erskine.”

No libel action, however, was brought, and in due course a second edition, “with an apology for the author and the work” was prepared, but here again D’Israeli’s nervous anxiety is displayed in the following letters:—

Mr D’Israeli to John Murray.

“It is absolutely necessary to stop going on with our second edition.

“Your personal interest is more deeply involved in this, than mine. You will incur a great risk, which I have very strong doubts will never be repaid.

“Secondly, my own ease of mind is as much as possible at risk. The work certainly gives great offence to many; the execution is at times most bunglingly performed, and I am convinced the curiosity of a certain part of the public was stirred, which occasioned the demand. Whatever real merits may be in the work are entirely outnumbered by the errors of its author.

“The printer has only done three sheets, perhaps a fourth. These sheets may at present be deposited in your warehouse. The expense of the printer may be divided between us, or I will repay you. Dagley* I will undertake myself to satisfy.

“I have maturely considered this affair. To prevent a serious loss to you, and deep vexation for myself, I have immediately hit on this plan. What has just passed cannot be recalled, and I will bear the consequences.

“Pray then return the MS.; stop the printer.

“If it were really necessary, the work might be resumed a year hence. If there’s no second edition, no other reason need be given than that the authors would not give any.

“When it is out of print, if ever the few on hand are sold, it may be more talked of; at present the current runs all against it.”

* The engraver.

Mr D’Israeli to Mr. Murray.

Dear Murray,

I begin to think the book is not half so bad as some choose to think. What I am doing will convince you, that I want not spirit and confidence, as well as modesty and timidity. I am preparing to set down. I hugely like my address to be prefixed to the Second Edition, which I am putting in order. I am certain that the Second Edition will be improved, but I wish also to have wit enough to convince the Wronghead family, in this new preface, that the odium they would throw on me is unjust. You will judge how I succeed in this.

I. D’I.

Mr D’Israeli to Mr. Murray.

Dear Murray,

I sent you an alteration for the advertisement, to run thus—“To this edition is prefixed an Apology for the Author and the Book.”

Since yesterday I have now the satisfaction of adding that the Apology is quite finished—and to my content! I do think it to be much superior to anything in the work itself; and I am very desirous of you and Dr. Grant seeing it. It is very entertaining; I think the sense is not heavy, and the humour genuine and pointed. I am sure there are several original views in it, as the whole is a defence of ‘Flim-Flamming.’ I think it ought to be expressed thus in the advertisement.

You mentioned something about the Doctor’s dining at your house to-morrow. Does he? I am going to the Institution to hear Mr. Dibdin on British Literature.

Yours, I. D’I.

The foregoing correspondence has been printed as illustrating the character of a remarkable man, and throwing light on a little known episode of his literary career.

Besides the ‘Curiosities of Literature,’ and ‘Flim-Flams,’ Mr. D’Israeli published through Murray, in 1803, a small volume of ‘Narrative Poems’ in 4to. They con-sisted of “An Ode to his Favourite Critic;” “The Carder and the Currier, a Story of Amorous Florence;” “Cominge, a Story of La Trappe;” and “A Tale addressed to a Sybarite.” The verses in these poems run smoothly, but they contain no wit, no poetry, nor even any story. They were never again reprinted.

Before leaving the year 1804 it is necessary to print the following letter, which is of especial interest, as fixing the date of an event which has given rise to much discussion—the birth of Benjamin D’Israeli.

Mr. Isaac D’Israeli to John Murray.

Dec. 22nd, 1804. My dear Sir,

Mrs. D’Israeli will receive particular gratification from the interesting note you have sent us on the birth of our boy—when she shall have read it. In the meanwhile accept my thanks, and my best compliments to your sister. The mother and infant are both doing well.

Ever yours, key="IsDIsra1848"I. D’I.

The following letters will afford an insight into the nature of the friendship and business relations which existed between Isaac D’Israeli and his young publisher as well as into the characters of the two men themselves.

Mr D’Israeli to John Murray.

Brighton, August 5th, 1805. My dear Sir,

Your letter is one of the repeated specimens I have seen of your happy art of giving interest even to commonplace correspondence; and I, who am so feelingly alive to the “pains and penalties” of postage, must acknowledge that such letters, ten times repeated, would please me as often.

We should have been very happy to see you here, provided it occasioned no intermission in your more serious occupations, and could have added to your amusements.

With respect to the projected ‘Institute,’* if that title be English—doubtless the times are highly favourable to patronize a work skilfully executed, whose periodical pages would be at once useful for information, and delightful for elegant composition, embellished by plates, such as have never yet been given, both for their subjects and their execution. Literature is a perpetual source opened to us; but the Fine Arts present an unploughed field, and an originality of character. The progress of the various Institutions is so much sunshine to this work. These will create an appetite, and while they provoke the curiosity, will impart a certain degree of understanding to the readers, without which a work can never be very popular. Could you secure the numerous Smatterers of this age, you will have an enviable body of subscribers. But the literary department of the work may be rendered of more permanent value. You are every day enlarging your correspondence with persons of real talent. Shee† is a man of genius, with a pen rather too fluent. Various passages in his prose might have been thrown out in the second edition, but an ardent Irishman is rarely known to eat his own words. “General” Duncan‡ may command the Oxford troops, though some of them perhaps are the “Heavy Horse.” Diversified talents are useful. You ask for a definite plan. Put into action, these and many more quarters will provide a number of good things, and it will not be difficult to lay out the tables.

But Money, Money must not be spared in respect to rich, beautiful, and interesting Engravings. On this I have something to communicate. Encourage Dagley§ whose busts of Seneca and Scarron are pleasingly executed; but

* This was a work at one time projected by Mr. Murray, but other more pressing literary arrangements prevented the scheme being carried into effect.

† Martin Archer Shee (afterwards President of the Royal Academy) published in 1805, ‘Rhymes on Art; or, the Remonstrance of a Painter.’ Lord Byron thought well of the work.

‡ Two brothers of this name, Fellows of New College, Oxford, were intimate literary friends of the Murrays and D’Israelis.

§ The engraver of the Frontispiece of ‘Flim-Flams.’

you will also want artists of name. I have a friend, extremely attached to literature and the fine arts, a gentleman of opulent fortune; by what passed with him in conversation, I have reason to believe that he would be ready to assist by money to a considerable extent. Would that suit you? How would you arrange with him? Would you like to divide your work in Shares? He is an intimate friend of West’s, and himself too an ingenious writer.

How came you to advertise ‘Domestic Anecdotes?’ Kearsley printed 1250 copies. I desire that no notice of the authors of that work may be known from your side.

I have seen nothing of the Prince [of Wales] here: Brighton has had a dull season. But a Prince called on me, whom I much esteem—Prince Hoare; he is Secretary for Foreign Correspondence to the Royal Academy, and lent me the third number of his ‘Academic Annals,’ a very useful project which the Academy has now adopted. He is to give an annual account of the state of the Arts throughout Europe. Perhaps he might contribute to your Institute.

At this moment I receive your packet of poems, and Shee’s letter. I perceive that he is impressed by your attentions and your ability. It will always afford me one of my best pleasures to forward your views; I claim no merit from this, but my discernment in discovering your talents, which, under the genius of Prudence (the best of all Genii for human affairs), must inevitably reach the goal. The literary productions of I. D[’Israeli] and others may not augment the profits of your trade in any considerable degree; but to get the talents of such writers at your command is a prime object, and others will follow.

I had various conversations with Phillips* here; he is equally active, but more wise. He owns his belles-lettres books have given no great profits; in my opinion he must have lost even by some. But he makes a fortune by juvenile and useful compilations. You know I always told you he wanted literary taste—like an atheist, who is usually a disappointed man, he thinks all belles lettres are nonsense, and denies the existence of taste; but it exists! and I

* Sir Richard Phillips, bookseller.

flatter myself you will profit under that divinity. I have much to say on this subject and on him when we meet.

At length I have got through your poetry: it has been a weary task! The writer has a good deal of fire, but it is rarely a very bright flame. Here and there we see it just blaze, and then sink into mediocrity. He is too redundant and tiresome. ’Tis possible enough, if he is young, he may one day be a Poet; but in truth there are few exquisite things and too much juvenility. There is nothing sufficiently defined, no pictures with finished design and bright colouring, and the greater part is a general vague commonplace. The poem on the “Boy blowing Bubbles” pleased me the best. That on “Sensibility” I do not see contains anything very novel. The whole is composed with some fancy not yet matured, with art not yet attained, and with too great a facility for rhyming. Compression, condensation, and nicety of taste are much wanted; and on the whole I think these poems will not answer the views of a bookseller. ’Tis a great disadvantage to read them in MS., as one cannot readily turn to passages; but life is too short to be peeping into other peoples’ MSS. I prefer your prose to your verse. Let me know if you receive it safely, and pray give no notion to any one that I have seen the MS.

I see there is a third edition of ‘The Sabbath,’ in spite of the cold insolence of the Edinburgh Review. I observe that you are meditating an important expedition to Edinburgh. A Scotchman is a good test of his adversary’s sagacity; I am sure you do not want for any. Mrs. D’Israeli’s best regards: she received a letter from your sister.

Believe me, as ever, yours, &c., I. D’Israeli .

Mr D’Israeli to Mr. Murray.

It is a most disagreeable office to give opinions on MSS.; one reads them at a moment when one has other things in one’s head—then one is obliged to fatigue the brain with thinking; but if I can occasionally hinder you from publishing nugatory works, I do not grudge the pains. At the same time I surely need not add, how very confidential such communications ought to be.

When you write, make your letter as short as you choose, for I see you are deeply occupied. The Prince’s band is now arranged before my house, and I shall be overtaken by a storm of music! Mellish has been the grand dasher here; had £25,000 depending on two or three races! Had his horse Sancho not been extraordinarily successful ’tis said he meant to have shot himself. He kissed and hugged him on the grounds. At length closes his present account with a poor £5000 winner. Rode a donkey-race with Lord Petersham, who, Phaethon-like, could not manage his ass, and was dashed into a cloud of dust, rolling on the earth by (like Phaethon) carrying himself too near it. I have not done with Mellish; I hope one day to begin on him. He has thrown out a fine estate in Yorkshire, from a dice-box; anticipated his mother’s jointure; drives round the Steyne all the morning, to the terror of nurses and children; bursts into the shops of milliners. This delightful boy of folly has not yet shot himself; but the time ought to be very near. He is getting old—twenty-five! he has lasted a good while, and the chink of his last guinea will soon be heard.

Your humble and affectionate nephew, I. D’I.

Mr D’Israeli to John Murray.

Dear M.,

A very particular friend of mine has sent me a pair of fine birds, one of which I mean to have dressed for supper at ten o’clock to-night. I shall be employed on the ‘Curiosities’ till ten, and if you will partake of this fine bird (and bottle) you have only to cast up your weekly accounts and be with me at the moment of its unspitting. Meanwhile,

Always yours, I. D’I. Saturday, 5 o’clock.

Mr D’Israeli to Mr. Murray.

Dear M.,

You will please to call on me to go to the theatre, as I shall take a coach going and returning. Pray let us be there at the Prologue.

The ‘Honeymoon’ is not the production of a person known to you. The author was a Mr. Tobin, and died some time back.

I thank you much for pens, paper, &c. I have such high hopes of what I shall hereafter write, that nothing less than the wing of the poetical Swan can carry me in my flights. I have hitherto had no great luck with a goose-quill.

Your last note has so much personal feeling for me in one part, and so much real wit in the other, that I have begun to calculate the expenditure of your genius. Notes of this kind will exhaust you, I think, in the course of the winter season. What a pity you should incur such a waste!

Yours, Semper Idem.

Mr. I. D’Israeli to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

I am delighted by your apology for not having called on me after I had taken my leave of you the day before; but you can make an unnecessary apology as agreeable as any other act of kindness.

I think you have admirably well disposed of a part of your wine, and it is done with your accustomed ingenuity, which always triples the value of a gift. Hunter should be instructed to return the same number of empty bottles—the only opportunity you have is to get rid of them on these occasions. They break and perish in the heap at home. Empty bottles, too, is an old cant term at the University to characterise a certain set of dull fellows, or frivolous scribblers—so that a bookseller, of all men, should be cautious of harbouring them.

You are sanguine in your hope of a good sale of ‘Curiosities,’ it will afford us a mutual gratification; but when you consider it is not a new work, though considerably improved I confess, and that those kinds of works cannot boast of so much novelty as they did about ten years ago, I am somewhat more moderate in my hopes.

What you tell me of F. F. from Symond’s, is new to me. I sometimes throw out in the shop remote hints about the sale of books, all the while meaning only mine; but they have no skill in construing the timid wishes of a modest author; they are not aware of his suppressed sighs, nor see the blushes of hope and fear tingling his cheek; they are provokingly silent, and petrify the imagination.

I shall certainly not hint at your further absence from Fleet Street. And then, a great event in your life, a fortunate one as I am persuaded, must succeed—that will also produce great dissipation of mind; but I hope that after a few months you will be fixed as the centre point of all your operations, and have the orb you describe moving correctly about you. To drop the metaphor, be assured your presence is absolutely necessary in and about your shop. You had to emigrate to find a solid business; you seem to have succeeded; you must now transplant it to your own bit of ground, and nurse it with the skill and industry of the gardener. You must employ your talents in this great town, as well as elsewhere, and in your house as well as in the town. You will not be offended with the ardent zeal I feel for your welfare; I wish to see you rooted in the earth as well as spreading out in blossoms and flowers.

Mrs. D’Israeli desires to be particularly remembered to you, love to Jane, compliments to Mr. and Mrs. Paget, and will be very happy to be introduced to Mary Anne, whom she thanks for her polite wishes. Pray include me in all these; I remember a beautiful Cupid’s head, which just laid its chin upon your father’s table, some twelve years ago. When I see Mary Anne I shall then be able to judge if I know her; a metamorphosis into a Venus from a Cupid might perplex me.

Believe me, with the truest regard, Yours ever, I. D’Israeli .

Mr D’Israeli to John Murray.

Saturday, May 31, 1806. King’s Road. My dear Friend,

It is my wish to see you for five minutes this day, but as you must be much engaged, and I am likely to be prevented reaching you this morning, I shall only trouble you with a line.

Most warmly I must impress on your mind the necessity of taking the advice of a physician. Who? You know many. We have heard extraordinary accounts of Dr. Baillie, and that (what is more extraordinary) he is not mercenary. I should imagine that one or two visits will be sufficient to receive some definite notion of your complaint. It will be a very great point if a medical man can ascertain this. Do not suppose that it is mere rheumatism which afflicts you, and bends your whole frame. The expense of a physician is moderate, if the patient is shrewd and sensible. Five or ten pounds this way would be a good deal. You also know Dr. Elaine, even intimately.

I have written this to impress on your mind this point. Seeing you as we see you, and your friend at a fault, how to decide, and you without some relative or domestic friend about you, gives Mrs. D’I. and myself very serious concerns—for you know we do take the warmest interest in your welfare—and your talents and industry want nothing but health to make you yet, what it has always been one of my most gratifying hopes to conceive of you.

Yours very affectionately, I. D’Israeli .

In another letter from Brighton, without date, Mr. D’Israeli writes:—

Mr D’Israeli to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

I have repeatedly felt a secret satisfaction at the spirit with which, by Clarke’s communications, I heard you pursued your expedition; and have no doubt but it will repay you, in proportion to the talent and industry you have exerted, and are so capable of exerting.

I have received the three vases you have so kindly presented me. Were they of crystal, they would hardly be more precious than they now become, as your gift. I admire the feeling of taste which led you to fix on them. With me the moral feeling unites with that of Taste, and I contemplate at once the work of Art and the gift of Friendship.

I have various things to say; the most important is, that having waited to the last moment, the chapter of the Edinburgh Review has been obliged to be finished, but is still just in time for any fortunate insertion, if you have any to offer. This evening, I imagine I shall be at home. To-morrow evening (Sunday) I conceive I shall be in town at nine o’clock. Monday evening I am to be alone: will you take your tea then? It will be alone with me, as my wife has a child’s party. Suit, however, your own convenience.

Believe me, truly yours. I. D’Israeli .

The nature of Mr. Murray’s important expedition to Edinburgh, mentioned in the last and in a previous letter, will be related in the following chapter.

CHAPTER III. MURRAY AND CONSTABLE—HUNTER AND THE FORFARSHIRE LAIRDS—MARRIAGE OF JOHN MURRAY.

The most important publishing firm with which Mr. Murray was connected at the outset of his career was that of Archibald Constable & Co., of Edinburgh. This connection had a considerable influence upon Murray’s future fortunes.

Constable was a man of great ability, full of spirit and enterprise. He was by nature generous, liberal, and far-seeing. The high prices which he gave for the best kind of literary work drew the best authors round him, and he raised the publishing trade of Scotland to a height that it had never before reached, and made Edinburgh a great centre of learning and literature.

His father was overseer to the Earl of Kellie, in Fife, and Archibald, after receiving a plain education at the parish school of Carnbee, was bound apprentice to Peter Hall, bookseller in Edinburgh, one of the friends and correspondents of Robert Burns. About the time of the expiration of his apprenticeship, Constable married the daughter of Mr. Wilson, printer, and began business on his own account in 1795, at the age of twenty-one. He devoted himself at first chiefly to the sale of old books connected with Scottish history and literature, by which line of trade he acquired considerable influence, and his shop, near the Cross and the Luckenbooths, was frequented by Dalzell, Richard Heber, Alexander Murray, John Leyden, and Walter Scott.

Constable was about four years older than Murray; both were alike full of spirit and enterprise, and eagerly looking ahead for the means of extending their connection; Constable was perhaps more daring, but Murray was more prudent. As Isaac D’Israeli said to the latter: “Prudence is the best of all genii for human affairs.”

In 1800 Constable commenced the Farmer’s Magazine, and in the following year he acquired the property of the Scots Magazine, a venerable repertory of literary, historical, and antiquarian matter, on which he employed the talents of Macneil, Leyden, and Murray. But it was not until the establishment of the Edinburgh Review, in October, 1802, that Constable’s name became a power in the publishing world.

In the year following the first issue of the Review, Constable took into partnership Alexander Gibson Hunter, eldest son of David Hunter, of Blackness, a large landed proprietor. The new partner brought a considerable amount of capital into the firm, at a time when capital was greatly needed in that growing concern. His duties were to take charge of the ledger and account department, though he never took much interest in his work, but preferred to call in the help of a clever arithmetical clerk.

It is unnecessary to speak of the foundation of the Edinburgh Review. It appeared at the right time, and was mainly supported by the talents of Jeffrey, Brougham, Sydney Smith, Francis Horner, Dr. Thomas Brown, Lord Murray, and other distinguished writers. The first number, immediately attracted public attention. Mr. Joseph Mawman was the London agent, but some dissatisfaction having arisen with respect to his management, the London sale was transferred to the Messrs. Longman, with one half share in the property of the work.

During the partnership of Murray and Highley, they had occasional business transactions with Constable of Edinburgh. When the partnership was dissolved in March 1803, it became the duty of Murray to communicate with Constable as to the settlement of the accounts between the firms. In the following month Murray wrote to Constable requesting him to advertise ‘Dundonald on Agriculture,’ and Dagley’s book on Gems* on the outside cover of the next Edinburgh Review. He also stated that he had no objection to Constable becoming the publisher of these works in Scotland. He concluded his letter with the following suggestive inquiry:

John Murray to Mr. A. Constable. April 25th, 1803.

“I have several works in the press which I should be willing to consign to your management in Edinburgh, but that I presume you have already sufficient business upon your hands, and that you would not find mine worth attending to. If so, I wish that you would tell me of some vigorous young bookseller, like myself, just starting into business, upon whose probity, punctuality, and exertion you think I might rely, and I would instantly open a correspondence with him; and in return it will give me much pleasure to do any civil office for you in London. I should be happy if any arrangement could be made wherein we might prove of reciprocal advantage; and were you from your superabundance to pick me out any work of merit of which you would either make me the publisher in London, or in which you would allow me to become a partner, I dare say the occasion would arise wherein I

* Mr. D’Israeli assisted in the preparation of the letterpress of this work.

could return the compliment, and you would have the satisfaction of knowing that your book was in the hands of one who has not yet so much business as to cause him to neglect any part of it.”

Mr. Constable’s answer was favourable. He was willing to become the agent for any works that Mr. Murray might consign to him, and he would give them his utmost attention. The result was that in June 1803 Mr. Murray sent to Constable & Co. some copies of I. D’Israeli’s ‘Flim-Flams,’ together with a copy for the editor of the Edinburgh. In the following August he again wrote to Constable, congratulating him upon the extensive circulation of the Edinburgh Review. “I hope,” he says, “it will continue its celebrity and prove highly advantageous to all its proprietors. Let me know if I can serve you in London.” Murray pushed the sale of the Review. In November he wrote to Constable: “I have got five-and-twenty new subscribers since March,” and requested that the additional numbers might be forwarded.

In October 1804 Mr. Murray, at the instance of Constable, took as his apprentice Charles Hunter, the younger brother of A. Gibson Hunter, Constable’s partner. The apprenticeship was to be for four or seven years, at the option of Charles Hunter. These negociations between the firms, and their increasing interchange of books, showed that they were gradually drawing nearer to each other, until their correspondence became quite friendly and even intimate. Walter Scott was now making his appearance as an author; Constable had published his ‘Sir Tristram’ in May 1804, and his ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel’ in January 1805. Large numbers of these works were forwarded to London and sold by Mr. Murray.

At the end of 1805, differences arose between the Constable and Longman firms as to the periodical works in which they were interested. The Editor and proprietors of the Edinburgh Review were of opinion that the interest of the Longmans in two other works of a similar character—the Annual Review and the Eclectic —tended to lessen their exertions on behalf of the Edinburgh. It was a matter that might easily have been arranged; but the correspondents were men of hot tempers, and with pens in their hands, they sent stinging letters from London to Edinburgh, and from Edinburgh to London. Rees, Longman’s partner, was as bitter in words on the one side as Hunter, Constable’s partner, was on the other. At length a deadly breach took place, and it was resolved in Edinburgh that the publication of the Edinburgh Review should be transferred to John Murray, Fleet Street. Alexander Gibson Hunter, Constable’s partner, wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:

Mr. A. G. Hunter to John Murray. December 1st, 1805.

“Our game with Messieurs Longman & Co. is entirely up! What think you of this? You will understand, of course, that it relates to things to come, and not to things past; as there must still remain some intercourse between us (either in a direct or roundabout way) with regard to those works in which we are at present jointly concerned. But all business is at an end between us relating to future publications, to the fullest extent. It would be difficult for me to give you any account at present of this last hurricane or tornado. Suffice it to say that we have some thoughts of copying out the whole correspondence without any commentary, and submitting it confidentially to you and our mutual friend, Mr. Davies . . . . Mr. Constable is to write to you to-morrow respecting our miscellaneous order of books from London, which we send for generally once a fortnight or so. I have no doubt we will experience every attention and expedition from you in procuring and forwarding these for us. This is the beginning of what in the end will, I most fervently trust, become a most extensive and intimate connection between us, and that ere long.”

Mr. Murray replied—

John Murray to Mr. A. G. Hunter. December 7th, 1805.

“With regard to the important communication of your last letter, I confess the surprise with which I read it was not without some mixture of regret. The extensive connections betwixt your house and Longman’s cannot be severed at once without mutual inconvenience, and perhaps mutual disadvantages, your share of which a more protracted dismemberment might have prevented. From what I had occasion to observe, I did not conceive that your concerns together would ever again move with a cordiality that would render them lasting; but still, I imagined that mutual interest and forbearance would allow them to subside into that indifference which, without animosity or mischief, would leave either party at liberty to enter upon such new arrangements as offered to their separate advantage. I do not, however, doubt but that all things have been properly considered, and perhaps finally settled for the best; but Time, the only arbitrator in these cases, must decide.

“In your proposed engagements with Mr. Davies, you will become better acquainted with a man of great natural talents, and thoroughly versed in business, which he regulates by the most honourable principles. As for myself, you will find me exceedingly assiduous in promoting your views, into which I shall enter with feelings higher than those of mere interest. Indeed, linked as our houses are at present, we have a natural tendency to mutual good understanding, which will both prevent and soften those asperities in business which might otherwise enlarge into disagreement. Country orders [referring to Constable & Co.’s ‘general order’] are a branch of business which I have ever totally declined as incompatible with my more serious plans as a publisher. But your commissions I shall undertake with pleasure, and the punctuality with which I have attempted to execute your first order you will, I hope, consider as a specimen of my disposition to give you satisfaction in every transaction in which we may hereafter be mutually engaged.”

In the same letter Mr. Murray says: “I have just shipped for you nearly the whole of your order on board the Coldstream packet, William Ord, master.”

It was a great chance for a young man entering life with a moderate amount of capital, to be virtually offered an intimate connection with one of the principal publishing houses of the day. It was one of those chances which, “taken at the flood, lead on to fortune,” but there was also the question of honour, and Mr. Murray, notwithstanding his desire for opening out a splendid new connection in business, would do nothing inconsistent with the strictest honour. He was most unwilling to thrust himself in between Constable and Longman. Instead, therefore, of jumping at Constable’s advantageous offer, his feelings induced him to try and promote reconciliation between the parties; and he continued to enjoin forbearance on the part of both firms, so that they might carry on their business transactions as before. The copies of the correspondence between them were submitted to the referees (Murray and Davies), and the following was Mr. Murray’s reply, addressed to Messrs. Constable & Co.:—

John Murray to Messrs. Constable & Co.

December 14th, 1805. Gentlemen,

Mr. Hunter’s obliging letter to me arrived this morning. That which he enclosed with yours to his brother last night, Charles gave me to read. The contents were very flattering. Indeed, I cannot but agree with Mr. H. that his brother has displayed very honourable feelings, upon hearing of the probable separation of your house, and that of Messrs. Longman & Co. Mr. Longman was the first who mentioned this to him, and indeed from the manner in which Charles related his conversation upon the affair, I could not but feel renewed sensations of regret at the unpleasant termination of a correspondence, which, had it been conducted upon Mr. Longman’s own feelings, would have borne, I think, a very different aspect. Longman spoke of you both with kindness, and mildly complained that he had perceived a want of confidence on your part, ever since his junction with Messrs. Hurst and Orme. He confessed that the correspondence was too harsh for him to support any longer; but, he added, ‘if we must part, let us part like friends’ I am certain, from what Charles reported to me, that Mr. L. and I think Mr. R. (Rees) are hurt by this sudden disunion.

Recollect how serious every dispute becomes upon paper, when a man writes a thousand asperities merely to show or support his superior ability. Things that would not have been spoken, or perhaps even thought of in conversation, are stated and horribly magnified upon paper. Consider how many disputes have arisen in the world, in which both parties were so violent in what they believed to be the support of truth, and which to the public, and indeed to themselves a few years afterwards, appeared unwise, because the occasion or cause of it was not worth contending about. Consider that you are, all of you, men who can depend upon each other’s probity and honour, and where these essentials are not wanting, surely in mere matters of business the rest may be palliated by mutual bearance and forbearance. Besides, you are so connected by various publications, your common property, and some of them, such as will remain so until the termination of your lives, that you cannot effect an entire disunion, and must therefore be subject to eternal vexations and regrets which will embitter every transaction and settlement between you.

You know, moreover, that it is one of the misfortunes of our nature, that disputes are always the most bitter in proportion to former intimacy. And how much dissatisfaction will it occasion if either of you are desirous in a year or two of renewing that intimacy which you are now so anxious to dissolve—to say nothing of your relative utility to each other—a circumstance which is never properly estimated, except when the want of the means reminds us of what we have been at such pains to deprive ourselves. Pause, my dear sirs, whilst to choose be yet in your power; show yourselves superior to common prejudice, and by an immediate exercise of your acknowledged pre-eminence of intellect, suffer arrangements to be made for an accommodation and for a renewal of that connexion which has heretofore been productive of honour and profit. I am sure I have to apologize for having ventured to say so much to men so much my superiors in sense and knowledge of the world and their own interest; but sometimes the meanest bystander may perceive disadvantages in the movements of the most skilful players.

You will not, I am sure, attribute anything which I have said to an insensibility to the immediate advantages which will arise to myself from a determination opposite to that which I have taken the liberty of suggesting. It arises from a very different feeling. I should be very little worthy of your great confidence and attention to my interest upon this occasion, if I did not state freely the result of my humble consideration of this matter; and having done so, I do assure you that if the arrangements which you now propose are carried into effect, I will apply the most arduous attention to your interest, to which I will turn the channel of my own thoughts and business, which, I am proud to say, is rising in proportion to the industry and honourable principles which have been used in its establishment. I am every day adding to a most respectable circle of literary connexions, and I hope, a few months after the settlement of your present affairs, to offer shares to you of works in which you will feel it advantageous to engage. Besides, as I have at present no particular bias, no enormous works of my own which would need all my care, I am better qualified to attend to any that you may commit to my charge; and, being young, my business may be formed with a disposition, as it were, towards yours; and thus growing up with it, we are more likely to form a durable connexion than can be expected with persons whose views are imperceptibly but incessantly diverging from each other.

Should you be determined—irrevocably determined (but consider!) upon the disunion with Messrs. Longman, I will just observe that when persons have been intimate, they have discovered each other’s vulnerable points; it therefore shows no great talent to direct at them shafts of resentment. It is easy both to write and to say ill-natured, harsh, and cutting things of each other. But remember that this power is mutual, and in proportion to the poignancy of the wound which you would inflict will be your own feelings when it is returned. It is therefore a maxim which I laid down soon after a separation which I had, never to say or do to my late colleague what he could say or do against me in return. I knew that I had the persona! superiority, but what his own ingenuity could not suggest, others could write for him.

I must apologize again for having been so tedious, but I am sure that the same friendliness on your part which has produced these hasty but well-meant expostulations will excuse them. After this, I trust it is unnecessary for me to state with how much sincerity,

I am, dear sirs, Your faithful friend, John Murray .

Ten days after this letter was written, Mr. Murray sent a copy of it to Messrs. Longman & Co., and wrote:—

John Murray to Messrs. Longman & Co.

December 24th, 1805. Gentlemen,

The enclosed letter will show that I am not ignorant that a misunderstanding prevails betwixt your house and that of Messrs. Constable & Co. With the cause, however, I am as yet unacquainted; though I have attempted, but in vain, to obviate a disunion which I most sincerely regret. Whatever arrangements with regard to myself may take place in consequence will have arisen from circumstances which it was not in my power to prevent; and they will not therefore be suffered to interfere in any way with those friendly dispositions which will continue, I trust, to obtain between you and, gentlemen,

Your obedient servant, J. Murray .

But the split was not to be avoided. It appears, however, that by the contract entered into by Constable with Longmans in 1803, the latter had acquired a legal right precluding the publication of the Edinburgh Review by another publisher without their express assent. Such assent not having been given, the London publication of the Edinburgh continued in Longman’s hands for a time: but all the other works of Constable were at once transferred to Mr. Murray. The latter, in his communication to Constable(January 4, 1806), wrote:—

“Messrs. Longman have sent to me the remainder of such books of yours as they had on hand, and they will occupy, as you prognosticated, a good space in my warehouse. We are just now arranging and counting them; and in a day or two I shall be able to send you a list.”

In April 1806 Mr. Murray joined Constable & Co. in taking shares of the Gazetteer of Scotland, Sir John Sinclair’s ‘Code of Health and Longevity,’ and Stark’s ‘Picture of Edinburgh.’

In the course of April Constable wrote to Murray in great spirits:—

“Our Edinburgh books are going off so well with your able assistance and activity that we shall be obliged to establish at least ten additional printing-houses, and as many binding shops, to enable us to supply the demand.”

Mr. Constable invited Murray to come to Edinburgh to renew their personal friendship and cement their confidential intercourse. Mr. Murray had in the previous year paid a visit to Edinburgh on “an important expedition,” as referred to by Mr. I. D’Israeli in the preceding chapter. He had then visited Constable and made his acquaintance; and now that their union was likely to be much closer, he desired to repeat the visit, but Mr. Murray had another, and, so far as regarded his personal happiness, a much more important cause of his renewed visit to Edinburgh. This was the affection which he had begun to entertain for Miss Elliot, daughter of the late Charles Elliot, publisher, with whom Mr. Murray’s father had been in such constant correspondence. The affection was mutual, and it seemed probable that the attachment would ripen into a marriage.

Mr. Constable’s invitation could not be accepted during the busy period of the publishing season. A promise was, however, given that towards the end of the year he might expect to see Mr. Murray once more in Edinburgh. Meantime Murray was deeply absorbed by his publishing business; ‘Bell’s Surgery,’ once in continuous demand, was now out of date; it was superseded by Samuel Cooper’s ‘Dictionary of Practical Surgery,’ published by Mr. Murray. Among the other medical works which he brought out were ‘Thomson’s Dispensatory,’ and a work on the Medical Department of Armies, but from this time he gradually gave up the publication of medical and surgical works, and devoted himself to other branches of literature, which opened up a newer and wider field.

A circumstance, not without influence on Murray’s future, occurred about this time with respect to the ‘Miniature,’ a volume of comparatively small importance, consisting of essays written by boys at Eton, and originally published at Windsor by Charles Knight. Through Dr. Rennell, Master of the Temple, his friend and neighbour, who lived close at hand, Murray became acquainted with the younger Rennell, Mr. Stratford Canning, Gally Knight, the two sons of the Marquis Wellesley, John and Robert Smith, and other young Etonians, who had originated and conducted this School magazine. Thirty-four numbers appeared in the course of a year, and were then brought out in a volume by Mr. Knight at the expense of the authors. The transaction had involved them in debt. “Whatever chance of success our hopes may dictate,” wrote Stratford Canning, “yet our apprehensions teach us to tremble at the possibility of additional expenses,” and the sheets lay unsold on the bookseller’s hands. Mr. Murray, who was consulted about the matter, said to Dr. Rennell, “Tell them to send the unsold sheets to me, and I will pay the debt due to the printer.” The whole of the unsold sheets were sent by the “Windsor Waggon” to Mr. Murray’s at Fleet Street. He made waste-paper of the whole bundle—there were 6376 numbers in all,—brought out a new edition of 750 copies, printed in good type, and neatly bound, and announced to Stratford Canning that he did this at his own cost and risk, and would make over to the above Etonians half the profits of the work. The young authors were highly pleased by this arrangement, and Stratford Canning wrote to Murray (October 20, 1805): “We cannot sufficiently thank you for your kind attention to our concerns, and only hope that the success of the embryo edition may be equal to your care.” How great was the importance of the venture in his eyes may be judged from the naïve allusion with which he proceeds: “It will be a week or two before we commit it to the press, for amidst our other occupations the business of the school must not be neglected, and that by itself is no trivial employment.”

By means of this transaction Murray had the sagacity to anticipate an opportunity of making friends of Canning, Frere, and the Smiths, who were never tired of eulogizing the spirit and enterprise of the young Fleet Street publisher. Stratford Canning introduced him to his cousin George, the great minister, whose friendship and support had a very considerable influence in promoting and establishing his future prosperity. It is scarcely necessary to add that the new edition of the ‘Miniature’ speedily became waste paper.

Among his other publications may be mentioned Krusenstern’s ‘Voyage round the World,’ new editions of ‘The Picture of London,’ ‘Fielding’s Novels,’ and ‘Marmontel’s Tales’; the latter illustrated by Bird of Bristol. On bringing out Richard Duppa’s ‘Life of Michael Angelo,’ a copy of the book was sent, at the author’s request, to Robert Southey, the poet, then living at Greta Hall. Mr. Southey, when acknowledging the receipt of the book, wrote to Mr. Duppa—

“It was accompanied by a note from Mr. Murray of a complimentary kind. I like to be complimented in my authorial character, and best of all by booksellers, because their good opinion gets purchasers, and so praise leads to pudding, which I consider to be the solid end of praise.”

Mr. Southey was not then aware how closely he and Mr. Murray were afterwards to become related, and how much “pudding” he was to derive from the connection.

Now that his reputation as a publisher was becoming established, Mr. Murray grew more particular as to the guise of the books which he issued. He employed the best makers of paper, the best printers, and the best bookbinders. He attended to the size and tone of the paper, the quality of the type, the accuracy of the printing, and the excellence of the illustrations. All this involved a great deal of correspondence. We find his letters to the heads of departments full of details as to the turn-out of his books. Everything, from the beginning to the end of the issue of a work—the first inspection of the MS., the consultation with confidential friends as to its fitness for publication, the form in which it was to appear, the correction of the proofs, the binding, title, and final advertisement—engaged his closest attention. Besides the elegant appearance of his books, he also aimed at raising the standard of the literature which he published. He had to criticize as well as to select; to make suggestions as to improvements where the manuscript was regarded with favour, and finally to launch the book at the right time and under the best possible auspices. It might almost be said of the publisher, as it is of the poet, that he is born, not made. And Mr. Murray appears, from the beginning to the end of his career, to have been a born publisher.

In August, 1806, during the slack season in London, Mr. Murray made his promised visit to Edinburgh. He had two objects in view; first, to accept the cordial invitation of Constable, and make his further personal acquaintance; but his principal object was to cultivate the friendship of Mrs. Elliot, and to prosecute his suit with her daughter. It is unnecessary to enter into particulars; but nothing seems to have occurred to throw any obstacle in the way of a happy result.

Mr. Murray was warmly received by Constable and Hunter, and enjoyed their hospitality for some days. After business matters had been disposed of, he was taken in hand by Hunter, the junior partner, and led off by him to enjoy the perilous hospitality of the Forfarshire lairds.

Those have been called the days of heroic drinking. Intemperance prevailed to an enormous extent. Mr. Robert Chambers, in his ‘Memoir of Burns,’ says that he came to Edinburgh at an unfortunate time—a time of greater licentiousness, perhaps, in all the capitals of Europe, and this northern one among the rest, than had been known for a long period. Men of the best education and social position drank like the Scandinavian barbarians of olden times. Tavern-drinking, now almost unknown among the educated and professional classes of Edinburgh, was then carried by all ranks to a dreadful excess.

Murray was conducted by Hunter to his father’s house of Eskmount in Forfarshire, where he was most cordially received, and in accordance with the custom of the times the hospitality included invitations to drinking bouts at the neighbouring houses.

An unenviable notoriety in this respect attached to Brechin Castle, the residence of Fox Maule of Panmure, commonly known as the “Generous Sportsman.” He was the second son of the eighth Earl of Dalhousie, but on succeeding to his mother’s estate had assumed the name of Maule in lieu of that of Ramsay.

Much against his will, Murray was compelled to take part in some of these riotous festivities with the rollicking, hard-drinking Forfarshire lairds, and doubtless he was not sorry to make his escape at length uninjured, if not unscathed, and to return to more congenial society in Edinburgh. His attachment to Miss Elliot ended in an engagement. The question arose, when was the marriage to take place? In the meantime, Mr. Adam Bruce, the family solicitor, with a cautious eye to the future, was endeavouring to obtain some information from London as to the suitor’s character. He wrote to the young lady’s brother William, then residing in London:

Mr. Adam Bruce to Mr. Wm. Elliot. Oct. 27, 1806.

“I have heard of what is going on in Charlotte Street; but from my having no acquaintances in London, I have no opportunity of making inquiries. I saw the gentleman while in Edinburgh and think well of him. I hope any accounts you have of him are satisfactory. Your uncle is something in the same situation as I am, having few acquaintances in London to whom he can apply on so delicate a subject.”

The result of the inquiries could not fail to be satisfactory. Mr. Murray was engaged in conducting a prosperous business; his name was becoming famous amongst booksellers and publishers as that of a man who could be relied on, and the public had confidence in the tone and quality of the works which he published.

In the course of his correspondence with Miss Elliot’s trustees, Mr. Murray gave a statement of his actual financial position at the time:

“When I say,” he wrote, “that my capital in business amounts to five thousand pounds, I meant it to be understood that if I quitted business to-morrow, the whole of my property being sold, even disadvantageously, it would leave a balance in my favour, free from debt or any incumbrance, of the sum above specified. But you will observe that, continuing it as I shall do in business, I know it to be far more considerable and productive. I will hope that it has not been thought uncandid in me if I did not earlier specify the amount of my circumstances, for I considered that I had done this in the most delicate and satisfactory way when I took the liberty of referring you to Mr. Constable to whom I consequently disclosed my affairs, and whose knowledge of my connexions in business might I thought have operated more pleasingly to Miss Elliot’s friends than any communication from myself.”

The correspondence with Miss Elliot went on, and at length it was arranged that Mr. Murray should proceed to Edinburgh for the marriage. He went by mail in the month of February. A tremendous snowstorm set in on his journey north. From a village near Doncaster he wrote to Constable: “the horses were twice blown quite round, unable to face the horrid blast of cold wind, the like of which I have never known before. There was at the same time a terrible fall of snow, which completely obscured everything that could be seen from the coach window. The snow became of great depth, and six strong horses could scarcely pull us through. We are four hours behind time.” From Doncaster he went to Durham in a postchaise; and pushing onward, he at last reached Edinburgh after six days’ stormy travelling.

While at Edinburgh, Mr. Murray resided with Mr. Sands, one of the late Charles Elliot’s trustees. The marriage took place on the 6th March, 1807, and the newly-married pair at once started for Kelso, in spite of the roads being still very bad, and obstructed by snow. Near Blackshields the horses fell down and rolled over and over. The postboy’s leg was broken, and the carriage was sadly damaged. A neighbouring blacksmith was called to the rescue, and after an hour and a half, the carriage was sufficiently repaired to be able to proceed. A fresh pair of horses was obtained at the next stage, and the married couple reached Kelso in safety. They remained there a few days, waiting for Mrs. Elliot, who was to follow them; and on her arrival, they set out at once for the south.

The intimacy which existed between Mr. Murray and Mr. D’Israeli will be observed from the fact of the latter being selected as one of the marriage trustees. A few days after the arrival of the married pair in London, they were invited to dine with Mr. D’Israeli and his friends. Mr. Alexander Hunter, whom Mr. Murray had invited to stay with him during his visit to London, thus describes the event:—

“Dressed, and went along with the Clan Murray to dine at Mr. D’Israeli’s, where we had a most sumptuous banquet, and a very large party, in honour of the newly-married folks. There was a very beautiful woman there, Mrs. Turner, wife of Sharon Turner, the Anglo-Saxon historian, who, I am told, was one of the Godwin school! If they be all as beautiful, accomplished, and agreeable as this lady, they must be a deuced dangerous set indeed, and I should not choose to trust myself amongst them.

“Our male part of the company consisted mostly of literary men—Cumberland, Turner, D’Israeli, Basevi, Prince Hoare, and Cervetto, the truly celebrated violoncello player. Turner was the most able and agreeable of the whole by far; Cumberland, the most talkative and eccentric perhaps, has a good sprinkling of learning and humour in his conversation and anecdote, from having lived so long amongst the eminent men of his day, such as Johnson, Foote, Garrick, and such like. But his conversation is sadly disgusting, from his tone of irony and detraction conveyed in a cunning sort of way and directed constantly against the Edinburgh Review, Walter Scott (who is a ‘poor ignorant boy, and no poet,’ and never wrote a five-feet line in his life), and such other d—d stuff.”

CHAPTER IV. ‘MARMION’—‘DOMESTIC COOKERY’—THE ‘EDINBURGH REVIEW.’

Mr. Murray was twenty-nine years old at the time of his marriage. He was in the prime of life and full of hope for the future. Good fortune had heretofore accompanied him, and benefiting by his past experience, he was ready to undertake any enterprise justified by prudence and forethought. Constable wrote to Hunter: “I had the pleasure of a few lines from Murray two days ago; he is a most fortunate fellow, and very deserving of it all.”

That Mr. Murray was full of contentment as well as hope at this time may be inferred from his letter to Constable three weeks after his marriage:—

John Murray to Mr. Constable. March 27th, 1807.

“I declare to you that I am every day more content with my lot. Neither my wife nor I have any disposition for company or going out; and you may rest assured that I shall devote all my attention to business, and that your concerns will not be less the object of my regard merely because you have raised mine so high. Every moment, my dear Constable, I feel more grateful to you, and I trust that you will ever find me your faithful friend,—J. M.”

Some of the most important events in Murray’s career occurred during the first year of his married life. Chief among them may perhaps be mentioned the publication of ‘Marmion’ (in Feb. 1808)—which brought him into intimate connection with Walter Scott—and his appointment for a time as publisher in London of the Edinburgh Review; for he was thus brought into direct personal contact with those forces which ultimately led to the chief literary enterprise of his life—the publication of the Quarterly Review.

Scott’s ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel’ had been so successful that Constable offered him one thousand pounds for the poem of ‘Marmion’ very shortly after it was begun, and before he had seen a line of the manuscript. This bold and generous offer startled the literary world. “It was a price,” Scott afterwards said, “that made men’s hair stand on end.” Constable offered one-fourth of the copyright to Mr. Miller of Albemarle Street, and one-fourth to Mr. Murray of Fleet Street. Both publishers eagerly accepted the proposal. Murray wrote to Constable:

“I am truly sensible of the kind remembrance of me in your liberal purchase. You have rendered Mr. Miller no less happy by your admission of him; and we both view it as honourable, profitable, and glorious, to be concerned in the publication of a new poem by Walter Scott.”

Mr. Scott called upon Mr. Murray in London shortly after the return of the latter from his marriage in Edinburgh.

John Murray to Mr. Constable. March 27th, 1807.

“Mr. Scott called upon me on Tuesday, and we conversed for an hour. . . . He appears very anxious that ‘Marmion’ should be published by the King’s birthday. . . . He said he wished it to be ready by that time for very particular reasons; and yet he allows that the poem is not completed, and that he is yet undetermined if he shall make his hero happy or otherwise.”

The poem was not, however, published until the beginning of the following year, when it appeared in a splendid quarto edition at a guinea and a-half. Before the arrival of the volumes from Edinburgh, Murray had sold 1500 copies at his trade sale. The first edition was out of print in less than a month, and a second edition of 3000 was ordered to be printed, of which Murray at once subscribed for 1500 copies. The book went on from edition to edition, and proved to be one of the greatest publishing successes of the day.

Mr. Scott edited and published, through Mr. Murray, Strutt’s unfinished romance of ‘Queenhoo Hall’ and the ‘Sadler Papers.’

The other important event, to which allusion has been made, was the transfer to Mr. Murray of part of the London agency for the Edinburgh Review. At the beginning of 1806 Murray sold 1000 copies of the Review on the day of its publication, and the circulation was steadily increasing. Constable proposed to transfer the entire London publication to Murray, but the Longmans protested, under the terms of their existing agreement. In April 1807 they employed as their attorney Mr. Sharon Turner, a cousin of Mr. D’Israeli, and one of Murray’s staunchest allies. Turner informed him, through a common friend, of his having been retained by the Longmans; but Murray said he could not in any way “feel hurt at so proper and indispensable a pursuit of his profession.” The opinion of counsel was in favour of the Messrs. Longman’s contention, and of their “indisputable rights to one-half of the Edin- burgh Review so long as it continues to be published under that title.’

Longman & Co. accordingly obtained an injunction to prevent the publication of the Edinburgh Review by any other publisher in London without their express consent. Jeffrey, the editor, took part in the controversy. He suggested that he should send in his resignation, and that Constable & Co. should start a New Edinburgh Review. These arrangements, if carried into effect, might have caused many difficulties, and perhaps led to the ruin of both the publications. Murray wrote to Constable:

John Murray to Messrs. Constable & Co. May 30th, 1807.

“The official serving of the injunction upon me will probably occur to-day. It will extend in some measure to every vendor of the Review—that is to say, any one selling it is liable to action should the adverse party think proper to go that length; but as it is not their interest to go that length, it is to be presumed that they may not, yet it must be guarded against. Your answer to the injunction, which will bring the matter to issue, is the only certain remedy. We have hitherto been successful in obviating any ill effects of the measures against us, and the grand sale of the Review has been suffered to take place without interruption.”

“It must certainly,” says Murray in a subsequent letter, “have been a very pleasing thing to you to have found such a sympathetic satisfaction in Longman, to offer pipes of wine to the editor and projector of the Edinburgh Review, but nothing that I could find has been said or thought of the original and spirited publishers of the same periodical. I am therefore most happy, if I be the first, to show my humble opinion of the merit due to them in offering from myself a pipe of the best port wine that I could procure. I beg you to accept it as a mere memorandum of the real services which I shall at all times be happy to render you for your great friendship to me, as well as of the very high esteem which I entertain for the characters of Messrs. Constable and Hunter.”

The difference between the contending publishers was brought to a crisis by Mr. Jeffrey in the following letter to Messrs. Constable and Co.

Mr. Francis Jeffrey to Messrs. Constable & Co.

June 1st, 1807. Gentlemen,

I believe you understand already that neither I nor any of the original and regular writers in the Review will ever contribute a syllable to a work belonging to booksellers. It is proper, however, to announce this to you distinctly, that you may have no fear of hardship or disappointment in the event of Mr. Longman succeeding in his claim to the property of this work. If that claim be not speedily rejected or abandoned, it is our fixed resolution to withdraw entirely from the Edinburgh Review; to publish to all the world that the conductor and writers of the former numbers have no sort of connection with those that may afterwards appear; and probably to give notice of our intention to establish a new work of a similar nature under a different title.

I have the honour to be, gentlemen, Your very obedient servant, F. Jeffrey .

A copy of this letter was at once forwarded to Messrs. Longman. Constable, in his communication accompanying it, assured the publishers that, in the event of the editor and contributors to the Edinburgh Review withdrawing from the publication, and establishing a new periodical, the existing Review would soon be of no value either to proprietors or publishers, and requested to be informed whether they would not be disposed to transfer their interest in the property, and, if so, on what considerations. Constable added: “We are apprehensive that the editors will not postpone for many days longer that public notification of their secession, which we cannot help anticipating as the death-blow of the publication.”

Jeffrey’s decision seems to have settled the matter. Messrs. Longman agreed to accept £1000 for their claim of property in the title and future publication of the Edinburgh Review. The injunction was removed, and the London publication of the Review was forthwith transferred to John Murray, 32 Fleet Street, under whose auspices No. 22 accordingly appeared.

The circulation continued to increase. The number sold in London went from 1000 in 1806 to 3500 at the beginning of 1807; and after the transfer of the publication to Mr. Murray, it still further increased. Of the 7000 copies printed in Edinburgh, about 5000 were sent to the London publisher.

In connection with Constable, Murray also published a considerable number of other new works and reprints, amongst them the ‘Mountain Bard’ and the ‘Shepherd’s Guide’ of Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd; while he also took part in the publication of the re-edited dramas of Ford, Ben Jonson, and Beaumont and Fletcher. He was invited to purchase the ‘Philosophical Magazine.’ Constablerecommended for its editor Professor Wallace of Edinburgh. He wrote to Murray, “you will find him a block of gold, with rather a whinstone appearance.”

Thus far all had gone on smoothly. But a little cloud, at first no bigger than a man’s hand, made its appearance, and it grew and grew until it threw a dark shadow over the friendship of Constable and Murray, and eventually led to their complete separation. This was the system of persistent drawing of accommodation bills, renewals of bills, and promissory notes. Constablebegan to draw heavily upon Murray in April 1807, and the promissory notes went on accumulating until they constituted a mighty mass of paper money. Bills were renewed, again and again, and the bankers were put off as long as possible. Murray’s banker cautioned him against the practice, which was desperately costly, and certain in the long run to prove ruinous. “An ounce of comfort,” he said, “is worth a pound of care.” But repeated expostulation was of no use against the impetuous needs of Constable & Co. Only two months after the transfer of the publication of the Review to Mr. Murray, we find him writing to “Dear Constable” as follows:—

John Murray to Mr. Archd. Constable. Oct. 1st, 1807.

“I should not have allowed myself time to write to you to-day, were not the occasion very urgent. Your people have so often of late omitted to give you timely notice of the day when my acceptances fell due, that I have suffered an inconvenience too great for me to have expressed to you, had it not occurred so often that it is impossible for me to undergo the anxiety which it occasions. A bill of yours for £200 was due yesterday, and I have been obliged to supply the means for paying it, without any notice for preparation; and on Wednesday, the first of your bills to Longman for £333. 6s. 8d. is due, and I am to remain until that day under apprehensions, lest it should be forgotten to be remitted, as it is not stated in your cash account. In granting my acceptances to your bills, I mean to exemplify all the faithful confidence which I repose in your friendship; but if the line of punctuality is once broken in upon, how can I remain easy? The best bills in the world I cannot get discounted at a moment’s notice. . . . I declare to you that it is imperative for me to tell you all the anxieties and inconvenience which I have undergone; but your own feelings will conceive them when you find it has obliged me to write to you on the subject. What would be the consequence, if anything led me from town without providing for your bills? I beg of you to insist upon this being regulated, as I am sure you must desire it to be, so that I may receive the cash for your bills two days at least before they are due.”

Mr. Murray then gives a list of bills of his own (including some of Constable’s) amounting to £1073, which he has to pay in the following week. From a cash account made out by Mr. Murray on the 3rd of October, it appears that the bill transactions with Constable had become enormous; they amounted to not less than £10,000. Murray asks for bills to keep himself right with Messrs. Dixon, his banker. “You will see,” he concludes, “what an immense sum I am to provide for, and what a difference your own bills would make to me.” More communications of the same kind followed. Constable sent Murray bills at forty days; but the latter said, “these are of no use to me at present; and I am therefore obliged to solicit the favour of you to get me a remittance at sight.” £2000 of Mrs. Murray’s marriage portion had been paid to Mr. Constable, of which he only remitted one half; and there was much correspondence about the remainder. Both continued very hard pressed for money.

John Murray to Mr. Archd. Constable. March 12th, 1808.

“I will not, I cannot, doubt the sincerity of your friendship for me, after so much mutual intimacy; and yet your conduct towards me lately is so very different from what I felt myself accustomed to receive, that I neither know how to act, nor how to think, upon the serious affairs which are pending between us. Twelve months ago I confided to your honour and friendship the receipt of two bonds of a thousand pounds each [part of his wife’s marriage portion] with the interest upon them. The first of them that was paid you remitted to me immediately; the second, being long overdue, I repeatedly urged you to obtain, assuring you as often that I very much wanted the money. Notwithstanding which, you never wrote to me as you did in the former case; but in consequence of a new request from me, you at length told me that it had been paid, and, as if you did not know that I had expressly informed you that I wanted the money, you asked me how it should be remitted? My answer was, soliciting the favour of you to remit the sum in bills, as you did the amount of my former bond. In consequence of this, I have been expecting the money every day, until the receipt of your last letter, a month after the money had been paid to you, whereas, without any notice of the time that it had been already detained, you tell me that it will be convenient for you to retain it for a month, unless I wish you to remit it to me. This behaviour, Mr. Constable, after a week’s consideration, does not appear to me to be reconcilable either with friendship or business. . . . In consequence of not receiving the amount of the bond and interest, as I expected, I was obliged to sell stock to make up a large sum that I wanted, and this day I am unexpectedly obliged to provide £250 in consequence of your failure to remit this sum, for a bill of yours now due, and inserted in your cash account amongst those to be remitted to me; and I have also the inconvenience of adding a similar sum, under the apprehension that you may again fail in sending me a second £250 of yours, due on Monday next.”

It soon became evident that this state of things could not be allowed to continue. Reconciliations took place from time to time, but interruptions again occurred, mostly arising from the same source—a perpetual flood of bills and promissory notes, from one side and the other—until Murray found it peremptorily necessary to put an end to it. Towards the end of 1808 Messrs. Constable established at No. 10 Ludgate Street a London house for the sale of the Edinburgh Review, and the other works in which they were concerned, under the title of Constable, Hunter, Park and Hunter. This, doubtless, tended to widen the breach between Constable and Murray, though it left the latter free to enter into arrangements for establishing a Review of his own, an object which he had already contemplated.

There were many books in which the two houses had a joint interest, and, therefore, their relations could not be altogether discontinued. ‘Marmion’ was coming out in successive editions; but the correspondence between the publishers grew cooler and cooler. Failures were occurring in Edinburgh. Money in the city was at 9 per cent. In these circumstances, letters such as the following could not have been very satisfactory to the London publisher.

Messrs. Constable & Co. to John Murray. December 8th, 1810.

“It is the most unpleasant thing to be obliged to delay sending you a remittance so completely promised; but as the want of it till Monday will not, I trust, put you to inconvenience at all amounting to the vexation I feel at this moment from a dependence on the promises of others—to put it out of my power to send you the cash as I most firmly expected. Do me the kindness to forgive this till you hear from me.”

This was followed up thirteen days later by the following letter from Constable to Murray:—

“I have been again under the necessity of drawing upon you for £350 at two months, which I of course trust to your friendship to accept.”

The correspondence went on some time longer, until at length it came to a sudden termination, as will be hereafter related.

Mr. Murray had also considerable bill transactions with Ballantyne & Co. of Edinburgh. James and John Ballantyne had been schoolfellows of Walter Scott at Kelso, and the acquaintance there formed was afterwards renewed. James Ballantyne established the Kelso Mail in 1796, but at the recommendation of Scott, for whom he had printed a collection of ballads, he removed to Edinburgh in 1802. There he printed the ‘Border Minstrelsy,’ for Scott, who assisted him with money. Ballantyne was in frequent and intimate correspondence with Murray from the year 1806, and had printed for him Hogg’s ‘Ettrick Shepherd,’ and other works. Moreover, they contemplated jointly the issue of a series of translations of the principal Classics, a scheme in which, writes James Ballantyne, “I expect much useful aid from Mr. Scott in selecting and arranging the proper classics. He seems to be much pleased with the plan.”

‘Pliny’s Letters,’ always a great favourite of Mr. Murray, was to have been the pioneer of the series, but the scheme was never carried out. The activity of Scott, however, provided the printer’s chief supply of copy; the publication of his works, ‘Sir Tristram’ and the ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel,’ followed in due time; and a gigantic scheme then presented itself to Scott, no less than a complete edition of the ‘British Poets,’ ancient and modern.

Scott now committed the great error of his life. His income was about £1000 a year, and with the profits of his works he might have built Abbotsford and lived in comfort and luxury. But in 1805 he sacrificed everything by entering into partnership with James Ballantyne, and embarking in his printing concern almost the whole of the capital which he possessed. He was bound to the firm for twenty years, and during that time he produced his greatest works. It is true that but for the difficulties in which he was latterly immersed, we might never have known the noble courage with which he encountered his trials and endeavoured to rise above his fate.

The scheme of the ‘British Poets’ fell through. It was afterwards taken up in a limited form by Mr. Thomas Campbell in his ‘Specimens of English Poetry.’ Meanwhile Scott proceeded with the ‘Life and Works of Dryden;’ wrote articles for the Edinburgh Review, and lived the life of a hard-working literary man. Ballantyne was enlarging his premises in the Canongate. “We had a grand shine yesterday,” wrote Alexander Hunter (Constable’s partner) to John Murray, 14th July, 1807; “at Messrs. Ballantyne’s printing office in his new rooms there, and a very nice thing it was. There were sixteen of us present; Walter Scott, William Erskine, Parson Thomson [Thomson of Duddingstone, the painter], Creech, and others. Everything good and abundant White Hermitage the order of the day. What would your London printers say to this? ” In the following year James Ballantyne took his brother John into partnership; and the concern seemed to go on very prosperously with Scott as Commander-in-chief.

In 1808 a scheme of great magnitude was under contemplation by Murray and the Ballantynes. It was a uniform edition of the ‘British Novelists,’ beginning with De Foe, and ending with the novelists at the close of last century; with biographical prefaces and illustrative notes by Walter Scott. A list of the novels, written in the hand of John Murray, includes thirty-six British, besides eighteen foreign authors. The collection could not have been completed in less than two hundred volumes. The scheme, if it did not originate with Walter Scott, had at least his cordial support, as will be seen from his letters to Mr. Murray, now for the first time made public.

Mr. Walter Scott to John Murray*

Ashestiel, Oct. 30th, 1808.

I have also been turning over in my mind the plan of the Novels and Romances. In my opinion they should be set about without loss of time, beginning with the Novels. Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett will lead the van with a very short memoir of each of those lives, and a prefatory essay on the peculiarities of their style. These will be followed by a good selection of novels of less name.

* The first part of this letter, which refers to the Quarterly is printed in the next chapter.

Those of later date may, however, be property, but I presume that the proprietors, for example of Miss Burney’s novels or Mrs. Ratcliffe’s, may be easily induced to consent to their insertion. I want very much an old catalogue of a large circulating library (suppose Hookham’s or Lane’s) to assist my memory in pointing out the works which should be inserted. I have the utmost confidence in this plan succeeding to an extent almost immense, and will gladly make you a present of my own time and labour should the work not prove profitable. Despatch is, however, the surest forerunner of success. I am endeavouring to get Richardson’s Novels—pray send me his Letters lately published. As the criticism will be of a different text and paging, the Novels in double columns may, I think, be comprised in two or almost three volumes, being either ten or seven 8vo. volumes to one of the new edition.

Pray do not omit to pick up old romances and novels and tales, and above all keep your plan secret. If you send me any packages before the 12th of next month, direct them to Ballantyne’s care. On that day I must be in Edinburgh, as our Courts sit down. The time of my London journey is still uncertain, but must take place before Christmas.

I showed Mr. Robt. Dundas (President of the Board of Control) our plan of a Review,* and told him I should call on him for a good account of Indian affairs as opportunity shall offer. He approves highly, as does Mr. Canning.

I am, dear sir, Your faithful, humble servant, Walter Scott .

Mr. Walter Scott to John Murray.

Ashestiel, Nov. 2nd, 1808. My dear Sir,

I wrote you a few days ago, since which I was favoured with your letter of the 26th, containing the lists of the Novels, &c., which were very acceptable. I agree with you that the shape of the Drama is inconvenient, but I really fear there is no other in which our matter will endure the necessary compression. This size is also most convenient for a shooting-seat or other place of temporary residence, as it contains a great deal in little space, and is very easily transported.

* The Quarterly.

It has also the convenience of not being “borrowed” with facility, and although the book be heavy, the subject is light—were it a volume of Sermons, indeed, a fair lady might endanger her toes by falling asleep with it in her hand. To give the selection some appearance of arrangement, it will be necessary to separate the Translations from the original Novels, to place those of each author together—which I observe is neglected in Harrison’s series—and to keep the Novels, properly so-called, separate from Romances and Tales. I have little doubt that 20 volumes of 700 pages will hold all the Novels, &c., that are worth reprinting, but I will be a much better judge when I see the catalogues. Should we find on strict selection that a volume or two more will be necessary, we can throw the Tales into a separate division. As I am quite uncertain about my journey to town, I think you had better send me the catalogues by the mail coach. The name of work should be fixed. I have thought of two, which I submit to you: ‘The Cabinet of Novels, being a collection, &c.,’ or ‘The English Novelist.’ I like the first best because it might be varied into ‘The Cabinet of Tales and Romances;’ but perhaps you can hit upon some one better than either. We must have as many of Charlotte Smith’s novels as we can compass—the ‘Old Manor House’ in particular. Pray look out for ‘Chaou Kiou Choau; or, The Pleasing Chinese History’; it is a work of equal rarity and curiosity. I agree entirely with you about Baron Trenck; but as to Marmontel, don’t you think a good selection of memoirs might one day be a more fit receptacle for him than our Cabinet?

Your faithful servant, Walter Scott .

Mr. Murray not unreasonably feared the cost of carrying such an undertaking to completion. It could not have amounted to less than twenty thousand pounds. Yet the Ballantynes urged him on. They furnished statements of the cost of printing and paper for each volume. “It really strikes me,” said James Ballantyne, “the more I think of and examine it, to be the happiest speculation that has ever been thought of.”

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray.

“With regard to the strong case which you put, of your being £19,000 in advance before you could draw any part of your outlay, Mr. Scott is of opinion that you might publish a part of the work during its progress; so much, that is, as would of itself form a respectable publication, and would at the same time, prove you to be so far advanced as to distance competition. He thinks you may safely publish the works of Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett, before proceeding further . . . Mr. Scott thinks also that the publication of the first six volumes should be accompanied with a full detail of your plan, and an assurance to the public that it was in speedy progress, and would certainly be completed . . . Mr. Scott is so sanguine about this plan, that I believe he means to propose to you to embark £500 or £1000 in it. I wish to God I had any money to embark.”

This undertaking eventually fell through. Only the works of De Foe were printed by the Messrs. Ballantyne, and published by Mr. Murray. The attention of the latter became absorbed by a subject of much greater importance to him—the establishment of the Quarterly Review. This for a time threw most of his other schemes into the shade.

Another enterprise in which the Ballantynes endeavoured to induce Mr. Murray to take a share was the Edinburgh Annual Register, of which James Ballantyne was to be editor, and to which Scott, Mackenzie, Erskine, and Prof. Leslie were to be contributors. One-twelfth share was offered to Mr. Murray, and similar portions were offered to other London booksellers.

“I look forward,” wrote the sanguine James, “to this work as to an inheritance; for the assistance I have received is of the most splendid kind. Mr. Scott’s words were, ‘Ballantyne, tell Murray not to be hasty in rejecting these shares. If the other parties hesitate and refuse, tell him by all means to take them himself.’”

We must not close this chapter without mentioning a publication, differing widely, indeed, in character from those previously dealt with, but which has always been closely associated with Mr. Murray’s name, and if success be a gauge of merit, may be called one of his principal achievements.

It has been suggested that the cares of housekeeping first turned Mr. Murray’s attention to cookery; be this as it may, there can be no doubt that Mrs. Rundell’s ‘Domestic Cookery’ owed much of its success to Mr. Murray’s happy choice of a title, of which he was not a little proud. Mrs. Rundell, an old family friend of the publisher, was connected with the well-known firm of Rundell and Bridges, silversmiths. Her book, as originally submitted, was subsequently so much enlarged, altered, and improved, in accordance with Murray’s suggestions, as to be rendered practically a new work. Previous cookery books had not done justice to the domestic element; they had been written by French cooks chiefly for tavern use, and were both bad and dear. The new cookery book met a great domestic want of the British housewife, and proved a great success. From five to ten thousand copies were printed yearly, and it long continued a favourite with the public.

CHAPTER V. ORIGIN OF THE ‘QUARTERLY REVIEW.’

The publication of a Tory Review was not the result of a sudden inspiration. The scheme had long been pondered over. Mr. Canning had impressed upon Mr. Pitt the importance of securing the newspaper press, then almost entirely Whiggish or Revolutionary, on the side of his administration. To combat, in some measure, the democratic principles then in full swing, Mr. Canning, with others, started, in November 1797, the Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner.

The Anti-Jacobin ceased to be published in 1798, when Canning, having been appointed Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, found his time fully occupied by the business of his department, as well as by his parliamentary duties, and could no longer take part in that clever publication.

Four years later, in October 1802, the first number of the Edinburgh Review was published. It appeared at the right time, and, as the first quarterly organ of the higher criticism, evidently hit the mark at which it aimed. In its early days the criticism was rude, and wanting in delicate insight; for the most part too dictatorial, and often unfair. It was conducted by some of the cleverest literary young men in Edinburgh—Jeffrey, Brougham, Sydney Smith, Francis Horner, Dr. Thomas Brown, and others. Though Walter Scott was not a founder of the Review, he was a frequent contributor.

Jeffrey could never appreciate the merits of Wordsworth, Southey, and Coleridge. “This will never do!” was the commencement of his review of Wordsworth’s noblest poem. Jeffrey boasted that he had “crushed the ‘Excursion.’” “He might as well say,” observed Southey, “that he could crush Skiddaw.” Miss Seward, whose ‘Life of Dr. Darwin’ had received a cutting notice, wrote to Scott: “Jefferies ought to have been his name. Ignorance and envy are the only possible parents of such criticisms as disgrace the publication which assumes the name of your city.”

Ignorance seems to have pervaded the article written by Brougham, in the second number of the Edinburgh on Dr. Thomas Young’s discovery of the true principles of interferences in the undulatory theory of light. Brougham was then only twenty-four years old, and he undertook to condemn the principles upon which science had set its seal. Sir John Herschell said of Young’s discovery, that it was sufficient of itself to have placed its author in the highest rank of scientific immortality.

The articles contained in some of the early numbers of the Edinburgh made many enemies, especially, in politics. The Government was bitterly denounced, whether its measures were good or bad. Mr. Murray observing with indignation the undue power acquired by the northern Review, the roughshod way in which it endeavoured to crush down rising authors and men of science, as well as its extreme democratic views, while there was no other periodical publication to counteract its influence, resolved to address Mr. Canning in the following letter.

John Murray to the Right Hon. George Canning.

September 25th, 1807. Sir,

I venture to address you upon a subject that is not, perhaps, undeserving of one moment of your attention. There is a work entitled the Edinburgh Review, written with such unquestionable talent that it has already attained an extent of circulation not equalled by any similar publication. The principles of this work are, however, so radically bad that I have been led to consider the effect that such sentiments, so generally diffused, are likely to produce, and to think that some means equally popular ought to be adopted to counteract their dangerous tendency. But the publication in question is conducted with so much ability, and is sanctioned with such high and decisive authority by the party of whose opinions it is the organ, that there is little hope of producing against it any effectual opposition, unless it arise from you, Sir, and your friends. Should you, Sir, think the idea worthy of encouragement, I should, with equal pride and willingness, engage my arduous exertions to promote its success; but as my object is nothing short of producing a work of the greatest talent and importance, I shall entertain it no longer if it be not so fortunate as to obtain the high patronage which I have thus taken the liberty to solicit.

Permit me, Sir, to add that the person who addresses you is no adventurer, but a man of some property, and inheriting a business that has been established for nearly a century. I therefore trust that my application will be attributed to its proper motives, and that your goodness will at least pardon its obtrusion.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most humble and obedient Servant, John Murray .

So far as can be ascertained, Mr. Canning did not answer this letter in writing. But a communication was shortly after opened with him through Mr. Stratford Canning, whose acquaintance Mr. Murray had made through the publication of the ‘Miniature,’ referred to in a preceding chapter. Mr. Canning was still acting as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and was necessarily cautious of committing himself to a project which was meant to embrace political objects, and which might embarrass him in his political position. Mr. Stratford Canning, his cousin, was not bound by any such official restraints. In January 1808 he introduced Mr. Gifford to Mr. Murray, and the starting of the proposed new periodical was the subject of many consultations between them. It was some time, however, before any practical steps could be adopted.

Walter Scott still continued to write for the Edinburgh, notwithstanding the differences of opinion which existed between himself and the editor as to political questions. He was rather proud of the Review, inasmuch as it was an outgrowth of Scottish literature. Moreover, it kept authors and literary men up to the mark, and though it crushed the seemingly weak, it stimulated the strong. Scott even endeavoured to enlist new contributors, for the purpose of strengthening the Review. He wrote to Robert Southey in May 1807, inviting him to contribute to the Edinburgh. The honorarium was to be ten guineas per sheet of sixteen pages. This was a very tempting invitation to Southey, as he was by no means rich at the time, and the pay was more than he received for his contributions to the Annual Register. But he replied to Scott as follows:—

Mr. Southey to Mr. Scott. June, 1807.

“I have scarcely one opinion in common with it (the Edinburgh Review) upon any subject . . . . Whatever of any merit I might insert there would aid and abet opinions hostile to my own, and thus identify me with a system which I thoroughly disapprove. This is not said hastily. The emolument to be derived from writing at ten guineas a sheet, Scotch measure, instead of seven pounds for the Annual, would be considerable; the pecuniary advantage resulting from the different manner in which my future works would be handled [by the Review] probably still more so. But my moral feelings must not be compromised. To Jeffrey as an individual I shall ever be ready to show every kind of individual courtesy; but of Judge Jeffrey of the Edinburgh Review I must ever think and speak as of a bad politician, a worse moralist, and a critic, in matters of taste, equally incompetent and unjust.”*

Walter Scott, however, was very soon led to entertain the same views of the Edinburgh Review as Southey. A severe and unjust review of ‘Marmion,’ by Jeffrey, appeared in 1808, accusing Scott of a mercenary spirit in writing for money (though Jeffrey himself was writing for money in the same article), and further irritating Scott by asserting that he “had neglected Scottish feelings and Scottish characters.” Scott was much nettled by these observations. He at once severed his connection with Constable, not so much because of his conduct, but because of the intemperate remarks of Hunter, Constable’s partner. Hunter had already been the cause of disagreement between Constable & Company and the Longmans, and now he broke off the connection betwixt Constable and Scott. And perhaps to this circumstance, as well as to Jeffrey’s biting review, may be ascribed Scott’s early connection with the foundation of the Quarterly. “Constable,” writes Scott to his brother Thomas, in November 1808, “or rather that Bear, his partner, has behaved by me of late not very civilly, and I owe Jeffrey a flap with a foxtail on account of his review of ‘Marmion,’ and thus doth the whirligig of time bring about my revenges.”

* ‘The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey,’ iii. pp. 124-5.

Murray, too, was greatly annoyed by the review of ‘Marmion.’ “Scott” he used to say, “may forgive but he can never forget this treatment;” and, to quote the words of Mr. Lockhart: “When he read the article on ‘Marmion,’ and another on foreign politics, in the same number of the Edinburgh Review, Murray said to himself, ‘Walter Scott has feelings, both as a gentleman and a Tory, which these people must now have wounded; the alliance between him and the whole clique of the Edinburgh Review is now shaken;’” and, as far at least as the political part of the affair was concerned, John Murray’s sagacity was not at fault.

Mr. Murray at once took advantage of this opening to draw closer the bonds between himself and Ballantyne, for he well knew who was the leading spirit in the firm, and was desirous of obtaining the London agency of the publishing business, which, as he rightly discerned, would soon be started in connection with the Canongate Press, and in opposition to Constable. The large increase of work which Murray was prepared to place in the hands of the printers induced Ballantyne to invite him to come as far as Ferrybridge in Yorkshire for a personal conference. At this interview various new projects were discussed—among them the proposed Novelists’ Library—and from the information which he then obtained as to Scott’s personal feelings and literary projects, Murray considered himself justified in at once proceeding to Ashestiel, in order to lay before Scott himself, in a personal interview, his great scheme for the new Review. He arrived there about the middle of October 1808, and was hospitably welcomed and entertained. He stated his plans, mentioned the proposed editor of the Review, the probable contributors, and earnestly invited the assistance of Scott himself.

During Murray’s visit to Ashestiel No. 26 of the Edin- burgh Review arrived. It contained an article entitled “Don Cevallos on the Occupation of Spain.” It was long supposed that the article was written by Brougham, but it has since been ascertained that Jeffrey himself was the author of it. This article gave great offence to the friends of rational liberty and limited monarchy in this country. Scott forthwith wrote to Constable:—“The Edinburgh Review had become such as to render it impossible for me to become a contributor to it; now it is such as I can no longer continue to receive or read it.”

“The list of the then subscribers,” said Mr. Cadell to Mr. Lockhart, “exhibits, in an indignant dash of Constable’s pen opposite Mr. Scott’s name, the word ‘STOPT!’”

Mr. Murray never forgot his visit to Ashestiel. Scott was kindness itself; Mrs. Scott was equally cordial and hospitable. Richard Heber was there at the time, and the three went out daily to explore the scenery of the neighbourhood. They visited Melrose Abbey, the Tweed, and Dryburgh Abbey, not very remote from Melrose, where Scott was himself to lie; they ascended the Eildon Hills, Scott on his sheltie often stopping by the way to point out to Murray and Heber, who were on foot, some broad meadow or heather-clad ground, as a spot where some legend held its seat, or some notable deed had been achieved during the wars of the Borders. Scott thus converted the barren hillside into a region of interest and delight. From the top of the Eildons he pointed out the scene of some twenty battles.

Very soon after his return to London, Murray addressed the following letter to Mr. Scott:—

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

October 26th, 1808. Dear Sir,

Although the pressure of business since my return to London has prevented me writing to you sooner, yet my thoughts have, I assure you, been almost completely employed upon the important subjects of the conversation with which you honoured me during the time I was experiencing the obliging hospitality of Mrs. Scott and yourself at Ashestiel.

Mr. Murray then proceeded to discuss the question of the Novelists’ Library, described in the preceding chapter, and continued:—

This project is tolerably mechanical, and does not require in its production the mental energies of every kind which are indispensable in the other grand plan of a Review, which I perceive to be imperiously demanded. You have probably seen the advertisement of the New Review, which is to appear from the shop of the publisher of the Satirist, each critique to be signed by its author, and the whole phalanx to be headed by the notorious veteran Richard Cumberland, Esq. The miserable existence of such a Review cannot possibly linger beyond the third number; but it assists in showing practically how much a good Review is wanted in London by every class. I understand—indeed, I may say with certainty—that Marmion is to be the second article in the first number, after Fox, and it will probably bear the signature of your friend Cumberland himself. It happens very luckily, both for himself and the admirers of this gentleman, that he is about to publish a novel (now in the press), ‘John de Lancaster,’ in which he relies upon his talents as a writer, and his moral character as a man; for, having made two or three slips in former novels, he intends in this work to give his recantation, so that, whatever figure he may make in his own Review, he would certainly be a most admirable subject, and it will be hard if, upon this occasion, he does not receive that justice which his writings and character have so long merited. But I am diverging too much. I have seen Mr. William Gifford, hinting distantly at a Review; he admitted the most imperious necessity for one, and that too in a way that leads me to think that he has had very important communications upon the subject. He has been so obliging as to give me a work by the learned Dr. Ireland to publish. This is one of those gentlemen whom you may remember to have been suggested by Mr. Heber as capable of contributing to our Review. I feel more than ever confident that the higher powers are exceedingly desirous for the establishment of some counteracting publication; and it will, I suspect, remain only for your appearance in London to urge some very formidable plan into activity. I will trouble you no further upon these subjects until I am favoured with your wishes, and I will only add, that you shall ever find me active and faithful. I trust that Mrs. Scott and the family have returned with you in perfect health, and that you are preparing for your journey to London. I beg leave to offer my most respectful compliments to Mrs. Scott, and to assure you that Dear Sir,

I remain, with the highest esteem,

Your obliged and obedient Servant, John Murray .

This letter was crossed in transit by the following:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Ashestiel, by Selkirk, October 30th, 1808. Dear Sir,

Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have the satisfaction to find that Mr. Gifford has accepted the task of editing the intended Review. This was communicated to me by the Lord Advocate, who at the same time requested me to write Mr. Gifford on the subject. I have done so at great length, pointing out whatever occurred to me on the facilities or difficulties of the work in general, as well as on the editorial department, offering at the same time all the assistance in my power to set matters upon a good footing and to keep them so. I presume he will have my letter by the time this reaches you, and that he will communicate with you fully upon the details. I am as certain as of my existence that the plan will answer, provided sufficient attention is used in procuring and selecting articles of merit.*

What Scott thought of Murray’s visit to Ashestiel may be inferred from his letter to his political confidant, George Ellis, of which, as it has already appeared in Scott’s Life, it is only necessary to give extracts here:—

Mr. Scott to Mr. George Ellis.

November 2nd, 1808. Dear Ellis,

We had, equally to our joy and surprise, a flying visit from Heber about three weeks ago. He staid but three days, but, between old stories and new, we made them very merry in their passage. During his stay, John Murray, the bookseller in Fleet Street, who has more real knowledge of what concerns his business than any of his brethren—at least, than any of them that I know—came to canvass a most important plan, of which I am now, in “dern privacie,” to give you the outline. I had most strongly recommended to our Lord Advocate (the Right Hon. J. C. Colquhoun) to think of some counter measures against the Edinburgh Review, which, politically speaking, is doing incalculable damage. I do not mean this in a party way; the present ministry are not all I could wish them, for (Canning excepted) I doubt there is among them too much self-seeking. . . . But their political principles are sound English principles, and, compared to the greedy and inefficient horde which preceded them, they are angels of light and purity. It is obvious, however, that they want defenders, both in and out of doors. Pitt’s “Love and fear glued many friends to him; And now he’s fallen, those tough co-mixtures melt.” Were this only to effect a change of hands I should expect it with more indifference; but I fear a change of principles

* The remainder of this letter, which deals with the proposed Novelists’ Library, is printed in the preceding chapter.

is designed. The Edinburgh Review tells you coolly, “We foresee a speedy revolution in this country as well as Mr. Cobbett;” and, to say the truth, by degrading the person of the Sovereign, exalting the power of the French armies and the wisdom of their counsels, holding forth that peace (which they allow can only be purchased by the humiliating prostration of our honour) is indispensable to the very existence of our country, I think that for these two years past they have done their utmost to hasten the accomplishment of their own prophecy. Of this work 9000 copies are printed quarterly, and no genteel family can pretend to be without it, because, independent of its politics, it gives the only valuable literary criticism which can be met with. Consider, of the numbers who read this work, how many are there likely to separate the literature from the politics?—how many youths are there upon whose minds the flashy and bold character of the work is likely to make an indelible impression?—and think what the consequence is likely to be.

Now, I think there is balm in Gilead for all this, and that the cure lies in instituting such a Review in London as should be conducted totally independent of bookselling influence, on a plan as liberal as that of the Edinburgh, its literature as well supported, and its principles English and constitutional. Accordingly, I have been given to understand that Mr. William Gifford is willing to become the conductor of such a work, and I have written to him, at the Lord Advocate’s desire, a very voluminous letter on the subject. Now, should this plan succeed, you must hang your birding-piece on its hook, take down your old Anti-Jacobin armour, and “remember your swashing blow.” It is not that I think this projected Review ought to be exclusively or principally political; this would, in my opinion, absolutely counteract its purpose, which I think should be to offer to those who love their country, and to those whom we would wish to love it, a periodical work of criticism conducted with equal talent, but upon sounder principles. Is not this very possible? In point of learning, you Englishmen have ten times our scholarship; and, as for talent and genius, “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than any of the rivers in Israel?” Have we not yourself and your cousin, the Roses, Malthus, Matthias, Gifford, Heber, and his brother? Can I not procure you a score of blue-caps who would rather write for us than for the Edinburgh Review if they got as much pay by it? “A good plot, good friends, and full of expectation—an excellent plot, very good friends!”

Heber’s fear was lest we should fail in procuring regular steady contributors; but I know so much of the interior discipline of reviewing as to have no apprehension of that. Provided we are once set a-going by a few dashing numbers, there would be no fear of enlisting regular contributors; but the amateurs must bestir themselves in the first instance. From the Government we should be entitled to expect confidential communications as to points of fact (so far as fit to be made public) in our political disquisitions. With this advantage, our good cause and St. George to boot, we may at least divide the field with our formidable competitors, who, after all, are much better at cutting than parrying, and whose uninterrupted triumph has as much unfitted them for resisting a serious attack as it has done Buonaparte for the Spanish war. Jeffrey is, to be sure, a man of the most uncommon versatility of talent, but what then? “General Howe is a gallant commander, There are others as gallant as he.” Think of all this, and let me hear from you very soon on the subject. Canning is, I have good reason to know, very anxious about the plan. I mentioned it to Robert Dundas, who was here with his lady for a few days on a pilgrimage to Melrose, and he highly approved of it. Though no literary man, he is judicious, clair-voyant, and uncommonly sound-headed, like his father, Lord Melville. With the exceptions I have mentioned, the thing continues a secret . . . .

Ever yours, Walter Scott .

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

November 2nd, 1808.

I transmitted my letter to Mr. Gifford through the Lord Advocate, and left it open that Mr. Canning might read it if he thought it worth while. I have a letter from the Advocate highly approving my views, so I suppose you will very soon hear from Mr. Gifford specifically on the subject. It is a matter of immense consequence that something shall be set about, and that without delay. I am truly surprised at the inexhaustible activity of Mr. Cumberland’s spirit. His proposed Review * cannot be very long-lived—I hope ours stands a better chance of longevity. I am truly vexed at being kept in my present state of uncertainty concerning my motions southwards.

The points on which I chiefly insisted with Mr. Gifford were that the Review should be independent both as to bookselling and ministerial influences—meaning that we were not to be advocates of party through thick and thin, but to maintain constitutional principles. Moreover, I stated as essential that the literary part of the work should be as sedulously attended to as the political, because it is by means of that alone that the work can acquire any firm and extended reputation.

Moreover yet, I submitted that each contributor should draw money for his article, be his rank what it may. This general rule has been of great use to the Edinburgh Review. Of terms I said nothing, except that your views on the subject seemed to me highly liberal. I do not add further particulars because I dare say Mr. Gifford will show you the letter, which is a very long one.—Believe me, my dear Sir, with sincere regard,

Your faithful, humble Servant, Walter Scott .

In a subsequent letter to Mr. Ellis, Scott again indicates what he considers should be the proper management of the proposed Review.

“Let me touch,” he says, “a string of much delicacy—the political character of the Review. It appears to me that this should be of a liberal and enlarged nature, resting upon principles—indulgent and conciliatory as far as possible upon mere party questions, but stern in detecting and exposing all attempts to sap our constitutional fabric. Religion is another slippery station; here also I would endeavour

* The New Review, mentioned above.

to be as impartial as the subject will admit of. . . . The truth is, there is policy, as well as morality, in keeping our swords clear as well as sharp, and not forgetting the Gentleman in the Critic. The public appetite is soon gorged with any particular style. The common Reviews, before the appearance of the Edinburgh , had become extremely mawkish; and, unless when prompted by the malice of the bookseller or reviewer, gave a dawdling, maudlin sort of applause to everything that reached even mediocrity. The Edinburgh folks squeezed into their sauce plenty of acid, and were popular from novelty as well as from merit. The minor Reviews, and other periodical publications, have outréd the matter still further, and given us all abuse and no talent. . . . This, therefore, we have to trust to, that decent, lively, and reflecting criticism, teaching men not to abuse books, but to read and to judge them, will have the effect of novelty upon a public wearied with universal efforts at blackguard and indiscriminating satire. I have a long and very sensible letter* from John Murray, the bookseller, in which he touches upon this point very neatly.”

Scott was most assiduous in his preparations for the first number. He wrote to his brother, Thomas Scott, asking him to contribute an article; to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, of Christ Church, Oxford; to Mr. Morritt, of Rokeby Park, Yorkshire; and to Robert Southey, of Keswick, asking them for contributions. To Mr. Sharpe he says:—

“The Hebers are engaged, item Rogers, Southey, Moore (Anacreon), and others whose reputations Jeffrey has murdered, and who are rising to cry woe upon him, like the ghosts in ‘King Richard.’”

Scott’s letter to Gifford, the intended editor, was full of excellent advice. It was dated “Edinburgh, October 25th, 1808.” We quote from it several important passages:—

“John Murray, of Fleet Street,” says Scott, “a young bookseller of capital and enterprise, and with more good sense and propriety of sentiment than fall to the share of

* Given below, under date Nov. 15, 1808.

most of the trade, made me a visit at Ashestiel a few weeks ago; and as I found he had had some communication with you upon the subject, I did not hesitate to communicate my sentiments to him on this and some other points of the plan, and I thought his ideas were most liberal and satisfactory.

“The office of Editor is of such importance, that had you not been pleased to undertake it, I fear the plan would have fallen wholly to the ground. The full power of control must, of course, be vested in the editor for selecting, curtailing, and correcting the contributions to the Review. But this is not all; for, as he is the person immediately responsible to the bookseller that the work (amounting to a certain number of pages, more or less) shall be before the public at a certain time, it will be the editor’s duty to consider in due turn the articles of which each number ought to consist, and to take measures for procuring them from the persons best qualified to write upon such and such subjects. But this is sometimes so troublesome, that I foresee with pleasure you will soon be obliged to abandon your resolution of writing nothing yourself. At the same time, if you will accept of my services as a sort of jackal or lion’s provider, I will do all in my power to assist in this troublesome department of editorial duty.

“But there is still something behind, and that of the last consequence. One great resource to which the Edinburgh editor turns himself, and by which he gives popularity even to the duller articles of his Review, is accepting contributions from persons of inferior powers of writing, provided they understand the books to which their criticisms relate; and as such are often of stupifying mediocrity, he renders them palatable by throwing in a handful of spice, namely, any lively paragraph or entertaining illustration that occurs to him in reading them over. By this sort of veneering he converts, without loss of time or hindrance to business, articles, which in their original state might hang in the market, into such goods as are not likely to disgrace those among which they are placed. This seems to be a point in which an editor’s assistance is of the last consequence, for those who possess the knowledge necessary to review books of research or abstruse disquisitions, are very often unable to put the criticisms into a readable, much more a pleasant and captivating form; and as their science cannot be attained ‘for the nonce,’ the only remedy is to supply their deficiencies, and give their lucubrations a more popular turn.

“There is one opportunity possessed by you in a particular degree—that of access to the best sources of political information. It would not, certainly, be advisable that the work should assume, especially at the outset, a professed political character. On the contrary, the articles on science and miscellaneous literature ought to be of such a quality as might fairly challenge competition with the best of our contemporaries. But as the real reason of instituting the publication is the disgusting and deleterious doctrine with which the most popular of our Reviews disgraces its pages, it is essential to consider how this warfare should be managed. On this ground, I hope it is not too much to expect from those who have the power of assisting us, that they should on topics of great national interest furnish the reviewers, through the medium of their editor, with accurate views of points of fact, so far as they are fit to be made public. This is the most delicate and yet most essential part of our scheme.

“On the one hand, it is certainly not to be understood that we are to be held down to advocate upon all occasions the cause of administration. Such a dereliction of independence would render us entirely useless for the purpose we mean to serve. On the other hand, nothing will render the work more interesting than the public learning, not from any vaunt of ours, but from their own observation, that we have access to early and accurate information on points of fact. The Edinburgh Review has profited much by the pains which the Opposition party have taken to possess the writers of all the information they could give them on public matters. Let me repeat that you, my dear sir, from enjoying the confidence of Mr. Canning, and other persons in power, may easily obtain the confidential information necessary to give credit to the work, and communicate it to such as you may think proper to employ in laying it before the public.”

Mr. Scott further proceeded, in his letter to Mr. Gifford, to discuss the mode and time of publication, the choice of subjects, the persons to be employed as contributors, and the name of the proposed Review, thus thoroughly identifying himself with it.

“Let our forces,” he said, “for a number or two, consist of volunteers or amateurs, and when we have acquired some reputation, we shall soon levy and discipline our forces of the line. After all, the matter is become very serious—eight or nine thousand copies of the Edinburgh Review are regularly distributed, merely because there is no other respectable and independent publication of the kind. In this city (Edinburgh), where there is not one Whig out of twenty men who read the work, many hundreds are sold; and how long the generality of readers will continue to dislike politics, so artfully mingled with information and amusement, is worthy of deep consideration. But it is not yet too late to stand in the breach; the first number ought, if possible, to be out in January, and if it can burst among them like a bomb, without previous notice, the effect will be more striking.

“Of those who might be intrusted in the first instance you are a much better judge than I am. I think I can command the assistance of a friend or two here, particularly William Erskine, the Lord Advocate’s brother-in-law and my most intimate friend. In London, you have Malthus, George Ellis, the Roses, cum pluribus aliis. Richard Heber was with me when Murray came to my farm, and, knowing his zeal for the good cause, I let him into our counsels. In Mr. Frere we have the hopes of a potent ally. The Rev. Reginald Heber would be an excellent coadjutor, and when I come to town I will sound Matthias. As strict secrecy would of course be observed, the diffidence of many might be overcome. For scholars you can be at no loss while Oxford stands where it did; and I think there will be no deficiency in the scientific articles.”

Thus instructed, Gifford proceeded to rally his forces. There was no want of contributors. Some came invited, some came unsought; but, as the matter was still a secret, the editor endeavoured to secure contributions through his personal friends. For instance, he called upon Mr. Rogers to request him to secure the help of Moore.

“I must confess,” said Rogers to Moore, “I heard of the new quarterly with pleasure, as I thought it might correct an evil we had long lamented together. Gifford wishes much for contributors, and is exceedingly anxious that you should assist him as often as you can afford time. . . . All this in confidence of course, as the secret is not my own.”

Gifford also endeavoured to secure the assistance of Southey, through his friend, Mr. Grosvenor Bedford. Southey was requested to write for the first number an article on the Affairs of Spain. This, however, he declined to do; but promised to send an article on the subject of Missionaries.

“Let not Gifford,” he wrote to Bedford, in reply to his letter, “suppose me a troublesome man to deal with, pertinacious about trifles, or standing upon punctilios of authorship. No, Grosvenor, I am a quiet, patient, easy-going hack of the male breed; regular as clockwork in my pace, sure-footed, bearing the burden which is laid on me, and only obstinate in choosing my own path. If Gifford could see me by this fireside, where, like Nicodemus, one candle suffices me in a large room, he would see a man in a coat ‘still more threadbare than his own’ when he wrote his ‘Imitation,’ working hard and getting little—a bare maintenance, and hardly that; writing poems and history for posterity with his whole heart and soul; one daily progressive in learning, not so learned as he is poor, not so poor as proud, not so proud as happy.”

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray. October 28th, 1808.

“Well, you have of course heard from Mr. Scott of the progress of the ‘Great Plan.’ Canning bites at the hook eagerly. A review, termed by Mr. Jeffrey a tickler, is to appear of Dryden in this No. of the Edinburgh. By the Lord! they will rue it. You know Scott’s present feelings, excited by the review of ‘Marmion.’ What will they be when that of Dryden appears?”

It was some time, however, before arrangements could be finally made for bringing out the first number of the Quarterly. Scott could not as yet pay his intended visit to London, and after waiting for about a month, Murray sent him the following letter, giving his further opinion as to the scope and object of the proposed Review:—

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

November 15th, 1808. Dear Sir,

I have been desirous of writing to you for nearly a week past, as I never felt more the want of a personal conversation. I will endeavour, however, to explain myself to you, and will rely on your confidence and indulgence for secrecy and attention in what I have to communicate. I have before told you that the idea of a new Review has been revolving in my mind for nearly two years, and that more than twelve months ago I addressed Mr. Canning on the subject. The propriety, if not the necessity, of establishing a journal upon principles opposite to those of the Edinburgh Review has occurred to many men more enlightened than myself; and I believe the same reason has prevented others, as it has done myself, from attempting it, namely, the immense difficulty of obtaining talent of sufficient magnitude to render success even doubtful.

By degrees my plan has gradually floated up to this height. But there exists at least an equal difficulty yet—that peculiar talent in an editor of rendering our other great sources advantageous to the best possible degree. This, I think, may be accomplished, but it must be effected by your arduous assistance, at least for a little time. Our friend Mr. Gifford, whose writings show him to be both a man of learning and wit, has lived too little in the world lately to have obtained that delicacy and tact whereby he can feel at one instant, and habitually, whatever may gratify public desire and excite public attention and curiosity. But this you know to be a leading feature in the talents of Mr. Jeffrey and his friends; and that, without the most happy choice of subjects, as well as the ability to treat them well—catching the “manners living as they rise”—the Edinburgh Review could not have attained the success it has done; and no other Review, however preponderating in solid merit, will obtain sufficient attention without them. Entering the field too, as we shall do, against an army commanded by the most skilful generals, it will not do for us to leave any of our best officers behind as a reserve, for they would be of no use if we were defeated at first. We must enter with our most able commanders at once, and we shall then acquire confidence, if not reputation, and increase in numbers as we proceed.

Our first number must contain the most valuable and striking information in politics, and the most interesting articles of general literature and science, written by our most able friends. If our plan appears to be so advantageous to the ministers whose measures, to a certain extent, we intend to justify, to support, to recommend and assist, that they have promised their support; when might that support be so advantageously given, either for their own interests or ours, as at the commencement, when we are most weak, and have the most arduous onset to make, and when we do and must stand most in need of help? If our first number be not written with the greatest ability, upon the most interesting topics, it will not excite public attention. No man, even the friend of the principles we adopt, will leave the sprightly pages of the Edinburgh Review to read a dull detail of staid morality, or dissertations on subjects whose interest has long fled.

I do not say this from any, even the smallest doubt, of our having all that we desire in these respects in our power; but because I am apprehensive that without your assistance it will not be drawn into action, and my reason for this fear I will thus submit to you. You mentioned in your letter to Mr. Gifford, that our Review should open with a grand article on Spain—meaning a display of the political feeling of the people, and the probable results of this important contest. I suggested to Mr. Gifford that Mr. Frere should be written to, which he said was easy, and that he thought he would do it; for Frere could not only give the facts upon the subject, but could write them better than any other person. But having, in my project, given the name of Southey as a person who might assist occasionally in a number or two hence, I found at our next interview that Mr. Gifford, who does not know Mr. Southey, had spoken to a friend to ask Mr. S. to write the article upon Spain. It is true that Mr. Southey knows a great deal about Spain, and on another occasion would have given a good article upon the subject; but at present his is not the kind of knowledge which we want, and it is, moreover, trusting our secret to a stranger, who has, by the way, a directly opposite bias in politics.

Mr. Gifford also told me, with very great stress, that among the articles he had submitted to you was Hodgson’s Translation of Juvenal, which at no time could be a very interesting article for us, and having been published more than six months ago, would probably be a very stupid one. Then, you must observe, that it would necessarily involve a comparison with Mr. Gifford’s own translation, which must of course be praised, and thus show an individual feeling—the least spark of which, in our early numbers, would both betray and ruin us. He talks of reviewing himself a late translation of ‘Persius,’ for ( entre nous ) a similar reason. He has himself nearly completed a translation, which will be published in a few months.

In what I have said upon this most exceedingly delicate point, and which I again submit to your most honourable confidence, I have no other object but just to show you without reserve how we stand, and to exemplify what I set out with—that without skilful and judicious management we shall totally mistake the road to the accomplishment of the arduous task which we have undertaken, and involve the cause and every individual in not merely defeat, but disgrace. I must at the same time observe that Mr. Gifford is the most obliging and well-meaning man alive, and that he is perfectly ready to be instructed in those points of which his seclusion renders him ignorant; and all that I wish and mean is, that we should strive to open clearly the view which is so obvious to us—that our first number must be a most brilliant one in every respect; and to effect this, we must avail ourselves of any valuable political information we can command. Those persons who have the most interest in supporting the Review must be called upon immediately for their strenuous personal help. The fact must be obvious to you,—that if Mr. Canning, Mr. Frere, Mr. Scott, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Gifford, with their immediate and true friends, will exert themselves heartily in every respect, so as to produce with secrecy only one remarkably attractive number, their further labour would be comparatively light. With such a number in our hands, we might select and obtain every other help that we required; and then the persons named would only be called upon for their information, facts, hints, advice, and occasional articles. But without this—without producing a number that shall at least equal, if not excel, the best of the Edinburgh Review, it were better not to be attempted. We should do more harm to our cause by an unsuccessful attempt; and the reputation of the Edinburgh Review would be increased inversely to our fruitless opposition. . . . With respect to bookselling interference with the Review, I am equally convinced with yourself of its total incompatibility with a really respectable and valuable critical journal. I assure you that nothing can be more distant from my views, which are confined to the ardour which I feel for the cause and principles which it will be our object to support, and the honour of professional reputation which would obviously result to the publisher of so important a work. It were silly to suppress that I shall not be sorry to derive from it as much profit as I can satisfactorily enjoy, consistent with the liberal scale upon which it is my first desire to act towards every writer and friend concerned in the work. Respecting the terms upon which the editor shall be placed at first, I have proposed, and it appears to be satisfactory to Mr. Gifford, that he shall receive, either previous to, or immediately after, the publication of each number, the sum of 160 guineas, which he is to distribute as he thinks proper, without any question or interference on my part; and that in addition to this, he shall receive from me the sum of £200 annually, merely as the editor. This, Sir, is much more than I can flatter myself with the return of, for the first year at least; but it is my intention that his salary shall ever increase proportionately to the success of the work under his management. The editor has a most arduous office to perform, and the success of the publication must depend in a great measure upon his activity.

I am, dear Sir, Your obliged and faithful Servant, John Murray .

It will be observed from this letter, that Mr. Murray was aware that, besides skilful editing, sound and practical business management was necessary to render the new Review a success. The way in which he informs Mr. Scott about Gifford’s proposed review of ‘Juvenal’ and ‘Persius,’ shows that he fully comprehended the situation, and the dangers which would beset an editor like Gifford, who lived for the most part amongst his books, and was, to a large extent, secluded from the active world.

On the same day Scott was writing to Murray:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, November 15th, 1808. Dear Sir,

I received two days ago a letter from Mr. Gifford highly approving of the particulars of the plan which I had sketched for the Review. But there are two points to be considered. In the first place, I cannot be in town as I proposed, for the Commissioners under the Judicial Bill, to whom I am to act as clerk, have resolved that their final sittings shall be held here, so that I have now no chance of being in London before spring. This is very unlucky, as Mr. Gifford proposes to wait for my arrival in town to set the great machine a-going. I shall write to him that this is impossible, and that I wish he would, with your assistance and that of his other friends, make up a list of the works which the first number is to contain, and consider what is the extent of the aid he will require from the North. The other circumstance is, that Mr. Gifford pleads the state of his health and his retired habits as sequestrating him from the world, and rendering him less capable of active exertion, and in the kindest and most polite manner he expresses his hope that he should receive very extensive assistance and support from me, without which he is pleased to say he would utterly despair of success. Now between ourselves (for this is strictly confidential) I am rather alarmed at this prospect. I am willing, and anxiously so, to do all in my power to serve the work; but, my dear sir, you know how many of our very ablest hands are engaged in the Edinburgh Review, and what a dismal work it will be to wring assistance from the few whose indolence has left them neutral. I can, to be sure, work like a horse myself, but then I have two heavy works on my hands already, namely, ‘Somers’ and ‘Swift.’ Constable had lately very nearly relinquished the latter work, and I now heartily wish it had never commenced; but two volumes are nearly printed, so I conclude it will now go on. If this work had not stood in the way, I should have liked Beaumont and Fletcher much better. It would not have required half the research, and occupied much less time. I plainly see that, according to Mr. Gifford’s view, I should have almost all the trouble of a co-editor, both in collecting and revising the articles which are to come from Scotland, as well as in supplying all deficiencies from my own stores.

These considerations cannot, however, operate upon the first number, so pray send me a list of books, and perhaps you may send some on a venture. You know the department I had in the Edinburgh Review. I will sound Southey, agreeable to Mr. Gifford’s wishes, on the Spanish affairs. The last number of the Edinburgh Review has given disgust beyond measure, owing to the tone of the article on Cevallos’ exposé. Subscribers are falling off like withered leaves.

I retired my name among others, after explaining the reasons both to Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Constable, so that there never was such an opening for a new Review. I shall be glad to hear what you think on the subject ot terms, for my Northern troops will not move without pay; but there is no hurry about fixing this point, as most of the writers in the first number will be more or less indifferent on the subject. For my own share, I care not what the conditions are, unless the labour expected from me is to occupy a considerable portion of time, in which case they might become an object. While we are on this subject, I may as well mention that as you incur so large an outlay in the case of the Novels, I would not only be happy that my remuneration should depend on the profits of the work, but I also think I could command a few hundreds to assist in carrying it on.

By the way, I see ‘Notes on Don Quixote’ advertised. This was a plan I had for enriching our collection, having many references by me for the purpose. I shall be sorry if I am powerfully anticipated. Perhaps the book would make a good article in the Review. Can you get me ‘Gaytoun’s Festivous Notes on Don Quixote?’

I think our friend Ballantyne is grown an inch taller on the subjects of the ‘Romances.’

Believe me, dear Sir, Yours very truly, Walter Scott .

Gifford is much pleased with you personally.

Meanwhile the breach between Scott and the Edinburgh Review was being widened.

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray.

November 21st, 1808.

You have no doubt heard, ere this time, of the universal indignation and disgust which the last number of the Edinburgh Review has given. Many people have given it up, and, if I may judge from what I hear, the general dissatisfaction is increasing. Mr. Scott was, I believe, the first who discontinued it. Constable was greatly affected by the annunciation; and I tell you in entire confidence that, from the aid which Mr. Scott determines to give your glorious work, and other causes, he anticipates an entire rupture with that house. He further told me, that if that event took place, you, if you chose it, should have the first offer of his future works. Indeed, he on every occasion expresses himself respecting you in the most flattering terms of approbation and respect.

Scott was very desirous of enlisting George Canning among the contributors to the Quarterly. He wrote to his friend Ellis:—

Mr. Scott to Mr. G. Ellis.

‘As our start is of such immense consequence, don’t you think Mr. Canning, though unquestionably our Atlas, might for a day find a Hercules on whom to devolve the burden of the globe, while he writes for us a review? I know what an audacious request this is, but suppose he should, as great statesmen sometimes do, take a political fit of the gout, and absent himself from a large ministerial dinner which might give it him in good earnest—dine at three on a chicken and pint of wine, and lay the foundation of at least one good article? Let us but once get afloat, and our labour is not worth talking about; but, till then, all hands must work hard.”

This suggestion was communicated by George Ellis to Gifford, the chosen editor, who was in frequent communication with Canning; and a few days after the above letter was written, Gifford addressed the following note to Murray:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

November 29th, 1808. My dear Sir,

I am sorry I was from home when you called; but Mr. Canning would not let me return till he came back himself, and he has this moment set me down at my door. . . . You will be glad to hear that Mr. Ellis has readily undertaken the Spanish article, but of this more when we meet.

Yours, &c., Wm. Gifford.

The support of Mr. Canning was eventually secured, as well as that of Lord Hawkesbury, Mr. Frere, and Mr. Long. Murray again wrote to Scott, assuring him of the active countenance and support of these, as well as other able contributors. Southey, besides his article on “Missionary Enterprise,” had promised another on the “Life of Bruce, the Abyssinian Traveller.”

John Murray to Mr. Scott. Nov. 19th, 1808.

“Mr. Gifford has communicated to me an important piece of news. He met his friend, Lord Teignmouth, and learned from him that he and the Wilberforce party had some idea of starting a journal to oppose the Edinburgh Review, that Henry Thornton and Mr. [Zachary] Macaulay were to be the conductors, that they had met, and that some able men were mentioned. Upon sounding Lord T. as to their giving us their assistance, he thought this might be adopted in preference to their own plans. . . . It will happen fortunately that we intend opening with an article on the missionaries, which, as it will be written in opposition to the sentiments in the Edinburgh Review, is very likely to gain that large body of which Wilberforce is the head. I have collected from every Missionary Society in London, of which there are no less than five, all their curious reports, proceedings and history, which, I know, Sydney Smith never saw; and which I could only procure by personal application. Southey will give a complete view of the subject, and if he will enter heartily into it, and do it well, it will be as much as he can do for the first number. These transactions contain, amidst a great deal of fanaticism, the most curious information you can imagine upon the history, literature, topography and manners of nations and countries of which we are otherwise totally ignorant. . . . If you have occasion to write to Southey, pray urge the vast importance of this subject, and entreat him to give it all his ability. I find that a new volume of Burns’ (‘The Reliques’) will be published by the end of this month, which will form the subject of another capital article under your hands. I presume ‘Sir John Carr (Tour in Scotland)’ will be another article, which even you, I fancy, will like; ‘Mrs. Grant of Laggan,’ too, and perhaps your friend Mr. Cumberland’s ‘John de Lancaster.’ . . . Are you not sufficiently well acquainted with Miss (Joanna) Baillie, both to confide in her, and command her talents? If so, you will probably think of what may suit her, and what may apply to her. Mr. Heber, too, would apply to his brother at your request, and his friend Coplestone, who will also be written to by a friend of Gifford’s. . . . Would you also urge Mr. S. particularly upon the opening article on Spain, which should contain the most valuable information, and, at the same time, be written with the utmost possible care and ability.”

About the date of publication of the first number, Mr. Murray proceeded:—

“Mr. Long expresses his doubts about publishing the first number in January next, and entreats the greatest consideration in every line, as so much depends on the first number; and, therefore, I proposed that, although every contributor should be required to send in his article by January 10th, yet that the time of publication should be determined merely by that moment when we are satisfied that we have got a really valuable number.”

On the 1st of December, Murray informed Scott that the article on Spain was proceeding under Mr. Canning’s immediate superintendence. Canning and Gifford went down to Mr. Ellis’s house at Sunninghill, where the three remained together for four days, during which time the article was hatched and completed. Mr. Murray further communicated that Mr. Rogers and Thomas Moore were likely to be secured as contributors; that Mr. Sotheby was proceeding with an article; that Mr. Hoppner was reviewing Lord Orford’s ‘Anecdotes of Painters;’ and that two or three able hands were upon the point of employment at Oxford and Cambridge. “In fact,” he says, “by the end of this month I think the machine will be in motion.”

Mr. Scott’s reply not only indicates his energy on behalf of the Quarterly, but shows that already the toils of the Ballantyne business were closing around him, and that the demands of the presses were inexorable.

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, December 14th, 1808. Dear Sir,

I am glad to see you are all activity. I will soon forward you reviews of Burns’ fifth volume and of the ‘Cid,’ and hope they will not disgrace my coadjutors. Bruce’s ‘Life’ is undertaken by Josiah Walker, who, I think, may do it well, as he knew the Abyssinian personally.

I know a young friend who, I think, will do Holmes’ ‘America’ well, but I cannot find the book in Edinburgh, and must trouble you to get a copy forwarded. My friend Mr. Erskine talks of reviewing Curran’s ‘Speeches’ and McNeil’s new poem, which hath just come forth from the shop of Mr. Constable. I have sent to my brother Lewis’s ‘Romances’ and the American tale by Mrs. Grant. Any of these contributions which may be unnecessary for the first number may be laid aside till wanted. Our friend Ballantyne has been requested* by a number of literary gentlemen here to edit an Annual Register. The Mackenzies, father and son, Lord Meadowbank, William Erskine, I myself (quoth the wren), and several other persons of good literary reputation are concerned. We mean for certain reasons to keep a considerable number of shares ourselves, but Ballantyne has been empowered to offer some to the London trade. As the thing promises extremely well, I shall be glad to find that you engage in it, for I assure you every nerve will be strained to render it worthy of public acceptance. Ballantyne’s own share in this concern is not very great, but I think it will lead to his acting as Scottish publisher in other instances. Indeed, Mr. Constable’s favours being a good deal withdrawn from him, and a very large proportion both of the literary and political world being desirous to have an Edinburgh publisher of activity and judgment, as well as constitutional principles, I have no doubt of his succeeding in an eminent degree, and being of the greatest service to his friends, in London, as they may be to him reciprocally. This, however, is as yet barely in prospect, and therefore I beg you will take no notice to Ballantyne that I hinted at such a matter, as I know whenever his resolution is fixed you will be the first to whom he will communicate it. From what I have learned, he will neither want funds nor friends, and Constable’s migration of a part of his stock to London seems favourable to the success of such an undertaking.

* According to Mr. Lockhart, Ballantyne informed Murray at their interview at Ferrybridge that the “author of ‘Marmion’ had chalked out the design of an Edinburgh Annual Register, to be conducted in opposition to the politics and criticism of Constable’s Review.”

I will certainly give it all the aid in my power, having the greatest reason to complain of Mr. Hunter’s behaviour towards me, although I retain great good-will to Constable as an individual.

I beg my compliments to Mr. Gifford, and believe me, my dear Sir,

Your faithful servant, Walter Scott .

On receiving the celebrated ‘Declaration of Westminster’ on the Spanish War, Scott wrote to Ellis:—

“Tell Mr. Canning that the old women of Scotland will defend the country with their distaffs, rather than that troops enough be not sent to make good so noble a pledge. Were the thousands that have mouldered away in petty conquests or Liliputian expeditions united to those we have now in that country, what a band would Sir John Moore have under him! . . . Jeffrey has offered terms of pacification, engaging that no party politics should again appear in his Review. I told him I thought it was now too late, and reminded him that I had often pointed out to him the consequences of letting his work become a party tool. He said ‘he did not fear for the consequences—there were but four men he feared as opponents.’ ‘Who are these?’ ‘Yourself for one.’ ‘Certainly you pay me a great compliment; depend upon it I will endeavour to deserve it.’ ‘Why, you would not join against me?’ ‘Yes, I would, if I saw a proper opportunity: not against you personally, but against your politics.’ ‘You are privileged to be violent.’ ‘I don’t ask any privilege for undue violence. But who are your other foemen?’ ‘George Ellis and Southey.’ The other he did not name. All this was in great good humour; and next day I had a very affecting note from him, in answer to an invitation to dinner. He has no suspicion of the Review whatever.”

In the meantime, Mr. Murray continued to look out for further contributors. Mr. James Mill, of the India House, promised (in December 1808) an article by Mr. Lowe on the West India Question, “a question,” says Mr. Mill, “which he would be very well pleased to communicate to the public through so respectable a channel as your new work.” On forwarding the article, Mr. Mill said:—

“If I have any objection to it, it is this, that he (Mr. Lowe) does not show the connection between the book he reviews and the argument which forms the principal part of his critique in a light sufficiently strong. This he should be made to alter. There will be time enough for it, if you and your editor are sufficiently pleased with the latter part of it to reserve a place for the article.”

Mr. Mill adds:—

“You do me a great deal of honour in the solicitude you express to have me engaged in laying the foundation stone of your new edifice, which I hope will be both splendid and durable; and it is no want of zeal or gratitude that delays me. But this ponderous Geography, a porter’s, or rather a horse’s load, bears me down to a degree you can hardly conceive. What I am now meditating from under it is to spare time to do well and leisurely the Indian article (my favourite subject) for your next number. Besides, I shall not reckon myself less a founder from its having been only the fault of my previous engagements that my first article for you appears only in the second number, and not in the first part of your work.”

Another contributor whom Mr. Murray was desirous to secure was Mrs. Inchbald, authoress of the ‘Simple Story.’ The application was made to her through one of Murray’s intimate friends, Mr. Hoppner, the artist. Her answer was as follows:—

Mrs. Inchbald to Mr. Hoppner.

December 31st, 1808. My dear Sir,

As I wholly rely upon your judgment for the excellency of the design in question, I wish you to be better acquainted with my abilities as a reviewer before I suffer my curiosity to be further gratified in respect to the plan of the work you have undertaken, or the names of those persons who, with yourself, have done me the very great honour to require my assistance. Before I see you, then, and possess myself of your further confidence, it is proper that I should acquaint you that there is only one department of a Review for which I am in the least qualified, and that one combines plays and novels. Yet the very few novels I have read, of later publications, incapacitates me again for detecting plagiary, or for making such comparisons as proper criticism may demand. You will, perhaps, be surprised when I tell you that I am not only wholly unacquainted with the book you have mentioned to me, but that I never heard of it before. If it be in French, there will be another insurmountable difficulty; for, though I read French, and have translated some French comedies, yet I am not so perfectly acquainted with the language as to dare to write remarks upon a French author. If Madame Cottin’s ‘Malvina’ be in English, you wish it speedily reviewed, and can possibly have any doubt of the truth of my present report, please to send it me; and whatever may be the contents, I will immediately essay my abilities on the work, or immediately return it as a hopeless case.

Yours very faithfully, E. Inchbald .

On further consideration, however, Mrs. Inchbald modestly declined to become a contributor. Notwithstanding her great merits as an author, she had the extremest diffidence in her own abilities.

Mrs. Inchbald to John Murray.

“The more I reflect on the importance of the contributions intended for this work, the more I am convinced of my own inability to become a contributor. The productions in question must, I am convinced, be of a certain quality that will demand far more acquaintance with books, and much more general knowledge, than it has ever been my good fortune to attain. Under these circumstances, finding myself, upon mature consideration, wholly inadequate to the task proposed, I beg you will accept of this apology as a truth, and present it to Mr. Hoppner on the first opportunity; and assure him that it has been solely my reluctance to yield up the honour he intended me which has tempted me, for an instant, to be undecided in my reply to his overture.—I am, Sir, with sincere acknowledgments for the politeness of your letter to me,

“ E. Inchbald.”

And here the correspondence dropped.

Mr. Pillans, then a Master at Eton, and afterwards Rector of the Edinburgh High School, offered to contribute an article on Pitt and Warton’s ‘Virgil.’ It was forwarded and put in type. Mr. Gifford did not think it “quite correct,” but the corrections, he added, might be made “in the proofs.”

Another important contributor was Dr. Thomas Young, whom Brougham had so unjustly cut up in the Edinburgh.

“I am unwilling,” he wrote to Mr. Murray, “to give up the idea of doing something for your first number. I have therefore determined to prepare you a few pages on a late work of Laplace, the supplement to his ‘Mécanique Celeste.’ This work would have been my first choice, as nothing can be better calculated for the purpose, but for the extreme difficulty of keeping my own speculations out of the question, and of avoiding too open a declaration of my being the author. I shall, however, hope to attain both these ends, and I shall beg that as little as possible may be said of my having contributed the article.”

In a subsequent letter, enclosing the article, Dr. Young writes to Mr. Murray:—“I hope you will not compare me with Balaam, of asinine memory, who was sent to curse the people of Israel, and then blessed them three times; but perhaps what I have written will produce a better effect than if I had been more severe.” Gifford, on enclosing the corrected proofs of the article to Murray, said, “I trust Dr. Young will prove to be a powerful combatant for us. . . I have enlisted to-day a recruit in Finance! Be active and secret.”

It is now difficult to understand the profound secrecy with which the projection of the new Review was carried on until within a fortnight of the day of its publication. In these modern times widespread advertisements announce the advent of a new periodical, whereas then both publisher and editor enjoined the utmost secrecy upon all with whom they were in correspondence. Still, the day of publication was very near, when the Quarterly was, according to Scott, to “burst like a bomb” among the Whigs of Edinburgh. The only explanation of the secrecy of the preliminary arrangements is that probably down to the last it was difficult to ascertain whether enough materials could be accumulated to form a sufficiently good number before the first Quarterly Review was launched into the world.

CHAPTER VI. GEORGE ELLIS AND WILLIAM GIFFORD.

Having thus described the preliminary steps taken by Murray, Scott, and Gifford, with a view to the issue of the first number of the Quarterly, it may not be uninteresting to our readers if we digress for a moment to give some account of two men who played a leading part in the foundation of the Review; who were for many years intimately associated with Mr. Murray in his principal literary undertakings, and whose names occur very frequently in the following pages.

George Ellis, prominent in his own day both as an author and a politician, but whose name is now remembered mainly by scholars, was the son of a wealthy West Indian proprietor, and was born in 1753.

As early as 1777 he published, anonymously, ‘Poetical Tales by Sir Gregory Gander,’ which were commended by Horace Walpole. He subsequently became a contributor to the Rolliad, and is believed to have been the author of some severe verses on Pitt, beginning, “Pert without fire, without experience sage,” which appeared therein.

Ellis was appointed to accompany Sir James Harris (afterwards Lord Malmesbury) on his mission to the Hague in 1784, and in 1790 to the Conference at Lille. He thus acquired experience in foreign and home politics, and was, in 1796, elected M.P. for Seaford. Before this time he had become intimately acquainted with George Canning, in conjunction with whom he assisted in starting the Anti-Jacobin.

His ‘Specimens of Early English Poetry,’ published in 1790, which subsequently went through six editions, attracted the attention of Walter Scott, to whom he was introduced by Richard Heber in 1801. In 1805 he published his ‘Specimens of Early English Romances.’

His acquaintance with Scott, who describes him as “the first converser I ever knew,” soon ripened into a warm and lifelong friendship, as is shown by the frequent mention of his name in Lockhart’s Biography. Scott dedicated to him the Fifth Canto of ‘Marmion,’ and he introduced Scott to George Canning.

It was in a large measure owing to the position, energy, and ability of this trio of friends that the Quarterly was started, and successfully conducted: whenever Mr. Canning contributed, as he not unfrequently did to the early numbers, it was through Mr. Ellis, as a rule, that the contributions were conveyed to the Editor.

Mr. Ellis himself wrote many articles, among which may be mentioned his reviews of Scott’s ‘Lady of the Lake,’ ‘Lord of the Isles,’ ‘Rokeby,’ and ‘Bridal of Triermain;’ of Byron’s ‘Childe Harold,’ ‘Giaour,’ and ‘Corsair.’ In conjunction with Mr. Canning, who at times used to go and stay with him at Sunninghill for the purpose, he contributed several important political articles, and down to the time of his death scarcely any number of the Quarterly appeared without one or more papers from his pen. To the last, Mr. Ellis was a friendly but severe critic to the Review, and on the appearance of each succeeding number it was his practice to write to Mr. Murray, pointing out in detail what was, in his opinion, good and bad in the materials or management. Ellis died in 1815: his epitaph was written by Canning, who sent it for Scott’s revision and approval before allowing it to be adopted.

The relations of William Gifford to John Murray were such as to warrant a somewhat more extended notice of his life, for in truth he was to the young publisher much more than the Editor of the Quarterly, or a general literary adviser. The large number of letters, notes, and memoranda which passed between them almost daily, go to prove that for many years there was scarcely any enterprise of any moment presented to Murray on which he did not consult Gifford; and in spite of the dilatoriness due to the Editor’s ill-health and natural indolence, which at times imperilled the existence of the Quarterly, the mutual affection of these two men remained unshaken till Gifford’s death.

The chief incidents of Gifford’s early career are recorded in his admirable and most interesting Autobiography, and need only be briefly mentioned here; but as his correspondence with Cookesley, his friend and early patron (carefully preserved by him, in spite of his general practice of destroying all letters in his possession), has never been published, and affords a glimpse of his existence at Oxford, we may be pardoned for dwelling on this portion of his life with somewhat more detail.

Gifford was born at Ashburton, Devon, in 1757. His parents were very poor, and his father was a sort of “ne’er-do-weel.” What money he earned was wasted on drink, and the mother had the utmost difficulty in bringing up her family. When eight years old the boy learnt something of the rudiments of education from a humble schoolmistress; but one day, while attempting to clamber up a little table, he fell backward and drew it after him. The edge of the table fell upon his breast and hurt him fearfully; indeed, he never recovered from the effects of the blow. His growth was stopped, and he became partially deformed. Asthma was one of the permanent effects of the injury, and affected him nearly all his life.

In 1770 Gifford and a little brother, then but two years old, were left as orphans to the tender mercies of a man named Carlile, William’s godfather, who neglected and illtreated the children.

Finding that William was too weak and delicate for hard manual labour, Carlile put the boy on board one of the coasting vessels at Brixham with a view to his becoming a sailor. Gifford continued to serve as ship-boy on The Two Brothers for nearly a twelvemonth. He thus became acquainted with nautical terms, and acquired a love for the sea which lasted till the close of his life.

While at Brixham, the future editor of the Quarterly used to be seen among the fish-wives, running about the beach in a ragged jacket and trousers. The women who travelled to Ashburton to sell their fish told this to the townspeople, and a cry of “shame” arose against Carlile, who had seized all the little means of Gifford and his brother. Carlile then recalled the elder boy from Brixham, and put him to school at the age of fourteen.

Gifford had already shown a fondness for arithmetic, and his progress was so rapid that in a few months he was at the head of his class and was able to assist his master. He now hoped to be able to maintain himself as his regular assistant and by undertaking the instruction of a few evening scholars. On reaching his fifteenth year he told his little plans of improvement to Carlile, but this heartless fellow swept them away at a blow. He took the boy from school and bound him apprentice for seven years to his cousin, an Ashburton shoemaker. His new master was an arrogant and conceited Presbyterian—an intolerable bigot and a heartless tyrant. Gifford hated his new trade with a perfect hatred, and was gradually sinking into the condition of family drudge.

At last his mind began to awake; though he had few means of improvement, he made the most of what he had. A treatise on algebra had been given him by a young woman, who had found it in a lodging-house. This he considered as a treasure, and he was enabled to study it by means of ‘Fenning’s Introduction,’ which he found hid away among the books of his master’s son. The way in which he was enabled to produce algebraic signs was remarkable. Being deprived by his hard master of pen, ink, and paper, he beat out pieces of leather as smooth as possible, and worked out his problems on them with a blunted awl. For the rest, his memory was tenacious, and he could multiply and divide by mental recollection.

He had not begun his literary culture as yet. When a boy he had read the Bible left to him by his mother, together with her ‘Imitatio Christi,’ and a few odd numbers of magazines. But now, while a shoemaker’s apprentice, he made his first literary effort in the composition of verses, by the recitation of which he was enabled to earn a few pence, and thereby to purchase the means of pursuing his studies.

In this obscure condition he was taken up and befriended by one of Nature’s gentlemen. Mr. William Cookesley, a country surgeon, had heard of the hard fate of young Gifford, and desired to make his acquaintance. Gifford told the good man the whole history of his life: his struggles, his sufferings, his difficulties, and aspirations. “His first care,” said Gifford afterwards, “was to console; his second, which he cherished to the last moment of his existence, was to relieve and support me.” Gifford’s tale so touched the heart of the surgeon, that he proceeded to get up a subscription for the purpose of “purchasing the remainder of the time of William Gifford, and for enabling him to improve himself in writing and English grammar.”

Gifford was now in the twentieth year of his age, and he had eighteen months yet to serve; but by strenuous efforts enough money was obtained, and Gifford was eventually bought off from his apprenticeship, and sent for tuition under the care of the Rev. Thomas Smerdon. There he assiduously studied English, writing, and other branches, for about three months; and when the means for his support were exhausted, Mr. Cookesley—whom Gifford always spoke of as “his father and friend”—again helped him, and enough was contributed to maintain him at school for another year.

During this time he made considerable progress in his studies, and as his preceptor spoke favourably and confidently of his improvement, Mr. Cookesley had little difficulty in persuading his patrons to renew their donations. At length, in two years and two months from the day of his emancipation from the shoemaker’s shop, Gifford was pronounced by his teacher, the Rev. Mr. Smerdon, to be fit for the University.

What was to be done now? It had been intended that Gifford should open a writing school, but that plan having been given up, Mr. Cookesley proceeded with his efforts to obtain some employment for him. He looked round for some one who had interest enough to procure for his protégé some office at Oxford. This friend was eventually found in Thomas Taylor, of Denbury, a gentleman to whom Gifford had already been indebted for much kind and liberal support. The situation Mr. Taylor secured for him was that of Bible Reader for Exeter College. Gifford proceeded thither in February 1779. His first act on reaching Oxford was to heartily thank his friend Cookesley for all that he had done for him. Cookesley replied as follows:—

“Though I have ever highly esteemed you, my dear Gifford, yet I was far from perceiving the extent of my regard for you till you left Ashburton; and I am only reconciled to the loss of your society by the prospects of advantage and honour which are now before you. Believe me, I shall ever feel myself as much interested in your future fortune as if you were my brother or my son. Your merit, indeed, hath not been known to me alone, nor was mine the only eye that was moistened at your departure. The family, to whom you had rendered yourself dear by cohabitation and kind offices, have sincerely mourned your loss, and expressed their kind regards for you in a way that fascinated me, and the string of sympathy within me was so tenderly touched, that had I not quitted them I had been a mere baby. Mrs. Earle was ten times worse. About an hour after your departure she positively declared that your great box was nothing else but your coffin! I esteem her for her feeling, and am confident that those tender feelings of humanity are the mark, if not always of a good heart, at least of a generous one. . . . You may tell me somewhat of Bath and Oxford if you please, but if you do not I shall not be angry, provided you inform me that you are happy and well received. As I told you, if you want my assistance, command it; and if your money is inadequate to your expenditure, you may draw a bill on me for a few pounds twenty days after date, and I will duly honour it.”

A long correspondence ensued between Gifford and Cookesley, which the former sacredly preserved.

“I feel myself peculiarly happy,” said Cookesley, “in the good opinion you entertain of my friendship, and I want but the power of giving you more efficacious proofs of it. Independent of the regard I bear your merit, I cannot but consider myself as (I had almost said) the entire cause of all that hath been done for you; and therefore, in the character of my adopted, dutiful, and affectionate child, you stand entitled to my best assistance on all occasions. Herein I am influenced both by duty and by inclination. Whilst a little remains, of that little you surely shall not want. I have given Mr. Earle [with whom Gifford had lodged] £10, in part of his bill, with which he is well pleased. As I presume this will give you satisfaction I have mentioned it, but insist upon your making no fuss nor ‘to do’ about it. Jack can very conveniently forbear till the spring for the residue of the balance.”

In the same letter, Mr. Cookesley reminded Gifford of the corrected “Pastorals,” and his new poems, which he proposed should be printed and subscribed for amongst his friends. Gifford proceeded with the work, and insisted that Mr. Cookesley’s name should stand at the head of the list of subscribers. “I will suck my fingers for a month rather than draw my pen to put a name over yours in my subscription book. Therefore, look to it! I am Wilful and Wishful; and Wilful will do it.”

Many of the letters are about money. The contributions for maintaining Gifford at college were always in arrear, though Cookesley’s was generally in advance. “’Tis unlucky,” said Cookesley, “that you should have been so ill-provided for the various demands of the college duns—a set of impertinent rascals, not to suffer an innocent youth to breathe one day within their walls till they aim at his very vitals. Had I conceived it possible for your stock of money to be so suddenly exhausted (though I had left myself penniless) you should not have quitted Ashburton without a more plentiful supply.”

Mr. Cookesley was by no means a rich man. Indeed, like most country surgeons, he worked hard for very little pay. Yet he was always ready with a share of his earnings for the still poorer Gifford. He often wrote his letters between sleeping and waking. One day he gives, as an excuse for the shortness of his letter:—

“I am quite fatigued, having been without sleep for a great part of the past night, and on horseback for several hours to-day. . . . Your account of the meadows of Christ Church, where you express a wish for my being with you, almost made me so far forget myself as to cry out, ‘I am resolved forthwith to set out for Oxford,’ but, alas! to begin one’s journey without money would be rather worse than ending it so. Nothing but my family keeps me from flying to you. Every day affords me fresh reasons for despising this wretched place, from which I most earnestly pray to be released.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Cookesley continued to live at Ashburton, and, to encourage Gifford with his advice and assistance, he was perfectly indefatigable in endeavouring to obtain the means of keeping him at College. He obtained renewed contributions from his friends, though in the meantime Gifford occasionally suffered from want; and he circulated Gifford’s poems, and obtained help from many persons outside Ashburton. Gifford was correspondingly grateful. When Cookesley lost a favourite child, Gifford wrote an elegy, which was greatly admired, and caused the parents’ tears to burst forth afresh. Mrs. Cookesley, as a token of regard, sent Gifford “a ring, in memory of the dear child.”

While under the tuition of Mr. Smerdon, Gifford had translated the ‘Tenth Satire’ of Juvenal for a holiday task. He now contemplated translating the remaining Satires with a view to their publication, but for this purpose he wanted a copy of the volume in which they were printed. He had no money with which to buy the book, and wrote to his benefactor on the subject.

Mr. Cookesley was one day dining with Governor Palk, near Ashburton, when he told him that on account of the arrears of the subscription for Gifford he could not yet afford to buy the book, though a second-hand copy had been offered him for sixteen shillings. The Governor then exclaimed, “Oh, dear! He shall not want a Juvenal! My dear” (to his wife), “give Mr. Cookesley a guinea, and tell Gifford from me that he shall have his Juvenal, and a little firing to read it by; and tell him, moreover, that I’ll make my subscription three guineas annually. Oh, yes, he must have his Juvenal!”

Besides studying Greek and Latin, Gifford learnt French and Spanish while at Oxford. He went through Moliere’s plays twice and Voltaire’s works once. Cookesley sent him a number of French books to read; in fact, made him a present of them. “I am exceedingly happy,” wrote Cookesley to Gifford, in June 1780, “to learn by Mr. Ireland of your well-doing. Indeed, I receive fresh satisfaction each time I hear of you, and begin to grow mighty proud of the honour of patronizing a man whose great merit, gratitude, and prudence more than repay everything that can be bestowed upon him.” Gifford was then proceeding with his translation of the ‘Satires’ of Juvenal, and a correspondence took place between him and Cookesley as to their publication by subscription.

But the noble and self-sacrificing Cookesley was not to know the success of his efforts on behalf of his young protégé. In the pursuit of his profession as a country surgeon he caught a severe cold in January 1781, which ended in his death. The intelligence was communicated to Gifford by Mr. Savery.

“Our poor dear friend,” he said, “was in perfect health and in his usual high spirits. On Wednesday morning he had a very cold ride to Withycombe, from which he returned with rheumatic complaints in his head and limbs. These hung about him, with some fever, for several days. His mind became much agitated. Dr. Birdwood said his disease was not so dangerous in itself, but that his own fears would destroy him. For he conceived himself to be in danger, and his distress of mind, on account of his family, deprived him totally of his reason. He had no sleep for eight days. At last convulsions seized him; he continued in a dying state till two o’clock on Sunday morning, when the dearest and most beloved of all my friends yielded up his spirit to God who gave it. I saw him in his expiring agonies about an hour and a half before he died. I kissed his dear face, and bathed his cold hands with the tears of friendship. Oh, Gifford! how insensible we are to the blessings of Providence until we lose them! Poor Mrs. Cookesley bears up as well as can be expected. I trust there will be money enough to discharge the debts, but of this I will write to you another time. God will, I trust, raise up many friends for the unhappy family; for myself, I will only say to you, that I should ill deserve to be called a friend to Cookesley if I now omit showing every friendship and giving every assistance to his family in my power. Now, Gifford, I offer you my hearty and sincere friendship. If you cannot find a more proper person, I will undertake your affairs, and receive your subscriptions, and promote your interest by every means we can devise. I will supply your wants as far as I can, and when you think of revisiting Ashburton you shall be as welcome to me as a brother.”

In a following letter Mr. Savery informed Gifford that Cookesley had advanced for him between £20 and £30 more than he had received in subscriptions, and that he hoped that he would now proceed with his Juvenal, so that further subscriptions might be obtained. He added—

“With respect to your pecuniary wants, I expect you to use no reserve with me, as I shall always be happy when I can supply them. I wish I could altogether prevent them. I am subject to these kind of wants myself, but I hope I shall always be able to assist you, and that you will in a few years be above the want of assistance of any kind.”

It was with inexpressible regret and distress that Gifford heard of the death of his benefactor, whose friendship had, indeed, continued unbroken until the end of his life. “He died,” said Gifford, “with a letter of mine unopened in his hand.” Gifford was not, however, to remain alone and un-befriended, as a new benefactor soon came to take the place of the one he had lost. Gifford had thus been enabled, by his generous friends’ help, to pass through several years of conscientious study at Exeter College, where he completed the entire translation of the ‘Satires’ of Juvenal. His subsequent career as an author, until he assumed the editorship of the Quarterly, comprising as it did his attack on the Della Cruscan School of Poetry, a clique of Poetasters, including Mrs. Piozzi, Bertie Greathead, and Robert Merry, whom he demolished in the ‘Baviad’ and ‘Mæviad,’ two brilliant Satires in imitation of ‘Persius’ and ‘Horace,’ is already well-known. The following letter, however, addressed to him by Cobbett, will be read with interest:—

Mr. Wm. Cobbett to Mr. Gifford.

Philadelphia, October 29th, 1797. Sir,

I am this day honoured with your valuable present, the ‘Baviad’ and ‘Mæviad,’ and lose not a moment to make you my acknowledgments for it. By a pile of papers, which I shall do myself the honour to forward you by the first vessel going from here to London, you will perceive that two of your small pieces had graced my Gazette previous to the receipt of the ‘Baviad’ and ‘Mæviad’; and, after the high opinion which they had given me of the genius and taste of the author, nothing could have pleased me more than to learn that my honest endeavours had met with his approbation.

As Merry appears to be one of your favourite heroes, it may, perhaps, be agreeable to you to be informed of his fate in this country. I believe you know that he came hither all in a flame of patriotism. This was soon cooled. This is a very fine country for cooling a British patriot. But before the heat had quite gone off him, he published his ‘Pains of Memory,’ which, though well larded with yawning interpolations about the “God-like Washington,” and “free Columbia,” and “land of promise rising beyond the Western Main,” and many other republican abominations, notwithstanding all this, and as much puffing as would serve to drive a Flanders windmill, the ‘Pains of Memory’ are to this day severely experienced by several of my brother booksellers, unfortunately for whom there are here no pastrycook shops, as there are in London.

Anna Matilda went on the stage;* but this is so poor a trade here now, that I am assured it is with the utmost difficulty they can live. The players are a set of strollers; and Merry is the Ragotin of the company. He is now as completely unknown here as if he lived under Matilda’s petticoats.

The only production of the Della Cruscan’s pen, since his emigration, you will receive enclosed; and from it you will see his genius is not on the rise. It must, however, be confessed that this is no climate for poetry. The bathos is so entirely adapted to the bias and the powers of the American mind, that no one ever aspires even to what you call doggerel. The first vessel that sails direct from here to London shall carry you some proofs of what I have been here asserting.

Mr. Wright tells me he is about to publish your translation of Juvenal. May I venture to beg a copy at your hands, Sir; and also of such other works as you have published? Be assured, that I think myself highly honoured by your present, and particularly when I look upon it as a testimony of my having merited the applause of a gentleman of genius and a true Englishman.

I am, Sir, your very devoted Servant, Wm. Cobbett .†

* In 1791 Merry married Miss Brunton, a celebrated actress, and in 1796 she accompanied her husband to America.

† Cobbett returned to England and started the Porcupine, in which he took the part of Mr. Pitt. He went to America again, and brought home the bones of Tom Paine, the quondam Quaker and Atheist; for which the Times called him “the ruffian bone-grubber.” Cobbett was

The Anti-Jacobin was started by Canning and his friends in 1797, and Gifford was eventually appointed the editor. Its principal importance, so far as Gifford was concerned, was, that it brought him into connection with Canning, Frere, and others, and secured for him their friendship. After the termination of the Anti-Jacobin, he proceeded with the completion of his translation of the ‘Satires’ of Juvenal, which he finished and published in 1802. Sir Walter Scott pronounced it to be the best poetical version of a classic in the English language. In 1805, Gifford edited and published an admirable edition of the plays of Massinger; and was proceeding with the works of the other old English dramatists, when he was selected, chiefly at the instance of Canning, as editor of the Quarterly Review; and the exercise of his functions in this important position for many years absorbed nearly the whole of his literary energies.

himself very good at nicknames. He did not spare his former friend Gifford and his associates, but denominated them “the dottrel-headed old shuffle-breeches of the ‘Quarterly Review.’”

CHAPTER VII. THE ‘QUARTERLY’ LAUNCHED.

While Mr. Gifford was marshalling his forces and preparing for the issue of the first number of the Quarterly, Mr. Murray was corresponding with James Ballantyne of Edinburgh as to the works they were jointly engaged in bringing out, and also with respect to the northern agency of the new Review. An arrangement was made between them that they should meet at Boroughbridge, in Yorkshire, at the beginning of January 1809, for the purpose of concocting their plans. Ballantyne proposed to leave Edinburgh on the 5th of January, and Murray was to set out from London on the same day, both making for Boroughbridge. A few days before Ballantyne left Edinburgh he wrote to Murray:—

“I shall not let a living soul know of my intended journey. Entire secrecy seems necessary at present I dined yesterday téte-à-téte with Mr. Scott, and had a great deal of highly important conversation with him. He showed me a letter bidding a final farewell to the house of Constable.”

It was mid-winter, and there were increasing indications of a heavy storm brewing. Notwithstanding the severity of the weather, however, both determined to set out for their place of meeting in Yorkshire Two days before Ballantyne left Edinburgh, he wrote as follows:—

Mr. Ballantyne to John Murray.

Jan. 4th, 1809. Dear Murray,

It is blowing the devil’s weather here; but no matter—if the mail goes, I go. I shall travel by the mail, and shall, instantly on arriving, go to the ‘Crown,’ hoping to find you and an imperial dinner. By the bye, you had better, on your arrival, take places north and south for the following day. In four or five hours after your receiving this, I expect to shake your princely paw.

Thine, J. B.

Scott wrote at the same time—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Castle St., Jan. 4th, 1809. My dear Sir,

I trouble you with a few lines to say that I will have my articles ready to send off to Mr. Gifford early next week. I have been strangely interrupted, first by my duty as Clerk to a Commission now sitting for reform of our Courts, and since by a very bad cold. Mrs. Scott sends you her kindest thanks for ‘Marmion Pocket Book.’

Ballantyne, who takes charge of this note, sets off to-day to meet you. We talked over a great number of plans or hints of plans together, and I am positively certain enough may be done in various ways to make him hold up his character with any Edinburgh publisher. Constable and I are quite broken, owing to Mr. Hunter’s extreme incivility, to which I will certainly never subject myself more. It seems uncertain whether even the ‘Swift’ proceeds, but this I will bring to a point. I shall be most anxious to see the Review. It is publicly talked of here, though by some confounded with Cumberland’s attempt. Constable mentioned the report to me and asked me if it was to be an Edinburgh publication. I told him report said “no.”

I fear this snow will render your journey rather unpleasant, but hope Ballantyne will get through notwithstanding. Believe me, my dear Sir,

Yours truly, W. Scott .

The weather, however, interfered with the meeting. It was snowing in Edinburgh, and snowing in London. Murray travelled northward by the mail, but although the coach, was drawn by six horses all the way, he was only able to reach Doncaster by the time that he should have been at Boroughbridge. In many places the labourers were at work shovelling away the snow and clearing out the roads. Early on the following morning, Murray pushed on from Doncaster. Ballantyne had experienced even severer weather; the snow-drifts along the Border had seriously interrupted the progress of the mail, and two days elapsed before he could meet his friend at the ‘Crown.’ At length they met, enjoyed their imperial dinner, and after transacting their important business they departed, one for Edinburgh, the other for London.

Ballantyne, on reaching Edinburgh, wrote:—

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray.

Jan. 11th, 1809.

I got home last night shrivelled with the cold like an autumn leaf, but sound in wind and limb. I have seen and talked over all our matters with our friend (Scott), and had the happiness to find that his confidence in us both is even increased by the coherence of our views in all particulars. . . . During our conversation I impressed him as strongly as I could respecting the importance of the first number of the Review, and found him as energetic and warm as yourself could wish. He even said that such was his sense of the duty which he had himself undertaken, that he wrote his articles with a degree of anxiety and care, which he fears may rather have injured than aided their effect. He complains much of the difficulty he found in getting those who had engaged to write to fulfil their engagement; but seems to regard this as necessarily attending every new plan. On the whole, he thinks your commencement is likely to be auspicious, and your progress great. Whether there is any hope that he may be in town in time to be useful to your first number I greatly doubt. He is over head and ears—not in politics, history, or poetry, but in figures and calculations! This is in consequence of his new employment as Clerk to the Commission of Parliament for reforming the Scotch Courts, which for the present almost entirely engrosses him. Were his facility of composition less, or his industry, he might fairly say that he had no time for other duties.

Most truly and faithfully yours, J. B.

The Ballantynes were appointed publishers of the new Review in Edinburgh, and, with a view to a more central position, they proceeded to take premises in South Hanover Street. Scott wrote with reference to this:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Feb. 1809.

I enclose the promised ‘Swift,’ and am now, I think, personally out of your debt, though I will endeavour to stop up gaps if I do not receive the contributions I expect from others. Were I in the neighbourhood of your shop in London I could soon run up half a sheet of trifling articles with a page or two to each, but that is impossible here for lack of materials.

When the Ballantynes open shop you must take care to have them supplied with food for such a stop-gap sort of criticism. I think we will never again feel the pressure we have had for this number; the harvest has literally been great and the labourers few.

Yours truly, W. S.

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray. January 27th, 1809.

“I see or hear of nothing but good about the Review. Mr. Scott is at this moment busy with two articles, besides the one he has sent. In conversation a few days since, I heard a gentleman ask him, ‘Pray, sir, do you think the Quarterly Review will be equal to the Edinburgh ?’ His answer was, ‘I won’t be quite sure of the first number, because of course there are difficulties attending the commencement of every work which time and habit can alone smooth away. But I think the first number will be a good one, and in the course of three or four, I think we’ll sweat them!’”

The first number of the Quarterly Review was published at the end of February, 1809. Like most first numbers, it did not entirely realize the sanguine views of its promoters. It did not burst like a thunder-clap on the reading public; nor did it give promise to its friends that a new political power had been born into the world. The general tone was more literary than political; and though it contained much that was well worth reading, none of its articles were of first-rate quality.

Walter Scott was the principal contributor, and was keenly interested in its progress, though his mind was ever teeming with other new schemes. The allusion in the following letter to his publication of “many un-authenticated books,” if unintentional, seems little less than prophetic.

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, Feb. 25th, 1809. Dear Sir,

I see with pleasure that you will be out on the first. Yet I wish I could have seen my articles in proof, for I seldom read over my things in manuscript, and always find infinite room for improvement at the printer’s expense. I hope our hurry will not be such another time as to deprive me of the chance of doing the best I can, which depends greatly on my seeing the proofs. Pray have the goodness to attend to this.

I have made for the Ballantynes a little selection of poetry, to be entitled ‘English Minstrelsy;’ I also intend to arrange for them a first volume of English Memoirs, to be entitled—

‘Secret History of the Court of James I.’

To consist of

Osborne’s ‘Traditional Memoirs.’ Sir Anthony Welldon’s ‘Court and Character of James I.’ Heylin’s ‘Aulicus Coquinariae.’ Sir Edward Peyton’s ‘Rise and Fall of the House of Stewart.’

I will add a few explanatory notes to these curious memoirs, and hope to continue the collection, as (thanks to my constant labour on ‘Somers’) it costs me no expense, and shall cost the proprietors none. You may advertise the publications, and Ballantyne, equally agreeable to his own wish and mine, will let you choose your own share in them. I have a commission for you in the way of art. I have published many unauthenticated books, as you know, and may probably bring forward many more. Now I wish to have it in my power to place on a few copies of each a decisive mark of appropriation. I have chosen for this purpose a device borne by a champion of my name in a tournament at Stirling! It was a gate and portcullis, with the motto clausus tutus ero. I have it engraved on a seal, as you may remark on the enclosure, but it is done in a most blackguard style. Now what I want is to have this same gateway and this same portcullis and this same motto of clausus tutus era, which is an anagram of Walterus Scotus (taking two single U’s for the W), cut upon wood in the most elegant manner, so as to make a small vignette capable of being applied to a few copies of every work which I either write or publish. This fancy of making portcullis copies I have much at heart, and trust to you to get it accomplished for me in the most elegant manner. I don’t mind the expense, and perhaps Mr. Westall might be disposed to make a sketch for me.

I am most anxious to see the Review. God grant we may lose no ground; I tremble when I think of my own articles, of two of which I have but an indefinite recollection.

What would you think of an edition of the ‘Old English Froissart,’ say 500 in the small antique quarto, a beautiful size of book; the spelling must be brought to an uniformity, the work copied (as I could not promise my beautiful copy to go to press), notes added and illustrations, &c., and inaccuracies corrected. I think Johnes would be driven into most deserved disgrace, and I can get the use of a most curious MS. of the French Froissart in the Newbattle Library, probably the finest in existence after that of Berlin. I am an enthusiast about Berners’ Froissart, and though I could not undertake the drudgery of preparing the whole for the press, yet Weber* would do it under my eye upon the most reasonable terms. I would revise every part relating to English history.

I have several other literary schemes, but defer mentioning them till I come to London, which I sincerely hope will be in the course of a month or six weeks. I hear Mr. Canning is anxious about our Review. Constable says it is a Scotch job. I could not help quizzing Mr. Robert Miller, who asked me in an odd sort of way, as I thought, why it was not out? I said very indifferently I knew nothing about it, but heard a vague report that the Edition was to be much enlarged on account of the expected demand. I also inclose a few lines to my brother, and am, dear Sir,

Very truly yours, W. Scott .

It is universally agreed here that Cumberland is five hundred degrees beneath contempt.

Ballantyne, Scott’s partner, and publisher of the Review in Edinburgh, hastened to communicate to Murray their joint views as to the success of the work.

Mr. Ballantyne to John Murray.

February 28th, 1809. My Dear Murray,

I received the Quarterly an hour ago. Before taking it to Mr. Scott, I had just time to look into the article on Burns, and at the general aspect of the book. It looks uncommonly well. . . . The view of Burns’ character is better than Jeffrey’s. It is written in a more congenial tone, with more tender, kindly feeling. Though not perhaps written with such elaborate eloquence as Jeffrey’s, the thoughts are more original, and the style equally

* Henry Weber, Scott’s amanuensis.

powerful. The two first articles (and perhaps the rest are not inferior) will confer a name on the Review, But why do I trouble you with my opinions, when I can give you Mr. Scott’s? He has just been reading the Spanish article beside me, and he again and again interrupted himself with expressions of the strongest admiration.

Three days later, Ballantyne again wrote:—

“I have now read ‘Spain,’ ‘Burns,’ ‘Woman,’ ‘Curran,’ ‘Cid,’ ‘Carr,’ ‘Missionaries.’ Upon the whole, I think these articles most excellent. Mr. Scott is in high spirits; but he says there are evident marks of haste in most of them. With respect to his own articles, he much regrets not to have had the opportunity of revising them. He thinks the ‘Missionaries’ very clever; but he shakes his head at ‘Sidney,’ ‘Woman,’ and ‘Public Characters,’ Our copies, which we expected this morning, have not made their appearance, which has given us no small anxiety. We are panting to hear the public voice. Depend upon it, if our exertions are continued, the thing will do. Would G. were as active as Scott and Murray!”

Murray had plenty of advisers. Gifford said he had too many. His friend, Sharon Turner, was ready with his criticism on No. I. He deplored the appearance of the article by Scott on “Carr’s Tour in Scotland.”*

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.

“I cannot endure the idea of an individual being wounded merely because he has written a book. If, as in the case of the authors attacked in the ‘Baviad,’ the works censured were vitiating our literature—or, as in the case of Moore’s Poems, corrupting our morals—if they were denouncing our religious principles, or attacking those political principles on which our Government subsists—let them be criticised without mercy. The salus publica

* Scott himself had written to Murray about this, which he calls “a whisky-frisky article,” on June 30. “I take the advantage of forwarding Sir John’s Review, to send you back his letters under the same cover. He is an incomparable goose, but as he is innocent and good-natured, I would not like it to be publicly known that the flagellation comes from my hand. Secrecy therefore will oblige me.”

demands the sacrifice. But to make an individual ridiculous merely because he has written a foolish, if it be a harmless book, is not, I think, justifiable on any moral principle. . . . I repeat my principle. Whatever tends to vitiate our literary taste, our morals, our religious or political principles, may be fairly at the mercy of criticism. So, whatever tends to introduce false science, false history, indeed, falsehood in any shape, exposes itself to the censor’s rod. But harmless, inoffensive works should be passed by. Where is the bravery of treading on a worm or crushing a poor fly? Where the utility? Where the honour?”

On the 28th of February Murray wrote to Ballantyne:—

“I have sent you 100 of the Quarterly Review by the mail, and 100 by the stage coach from White Horse, Fetter Lane. I intend to undergo the expense myself. To be sold to the trade precisely as the Edinburgh Review is sold.”

The supply was not sufficient. “All the 200 Reviews” wrote Ballantyne, “except 25 were sold within two hours after the shop was opened;” 200 more copies were sent on the 4th of March; 50 on the 7th; 200 on the 18th; 100 on the 22nd; and 100 on the 20th—in all, 850 copies; 4000 copies had been printed at first; the edition was soon exhausted; and a second edition was called for. Murray wrote to Ballantyne:—

“Although I am considerably out of pocket by the adventure at present, yet I hope that in the course of next year it will at least pay its expenses.”

Mr. Scott was ample in his encouragements.

“I think,” he wrote to Murray, “a firm and stable sale will be settled here, to the extent of 1000 or 1500 even for the next number. . . . I am quite pleased with my ten guineas a sheet for my labour in writing, and for additional exertions. I will consider them as overpaid by success in the cause, especially while that success is doubtful.”

At the same time Scott wrote a long letter to Gifford, of which the following sentence may be taken as a sample:—

“I will lay down my head in despair if this well-laid scheme is defeated by our own want of exertion. But I have no fear of it. I was never in my life subject to impressions of that nature; and in this case I will fight upon my stumps, like Widderington, and to the stumps, both of my pen and my sword, if need be.”

To Mr. Murray he wrote:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, March 7th, 1809. Dear Sir,

I safely received your letters for Erskine and myself covering the very handsome recompense of our labours, and also the new poem, and “John de Lancastre.” You need not fear my being courteous with such a veteran as Cumberland, though he has given me some provocation to use him harshly. General Report here is favourable to us, so far as it has reached my ear; and if the next number be what I anticipate with pleasure, there is no fear of us. I hope to get at least three capital articles here besides smaller things, and my own lucubrations. The copies sent to Hanover Street have made a very speedy retreat. I am anxiously expecting a summons to London because I hope to be of some use there, and we will talk over all our other plans. I am, dear Sir,

Yours truly, Walter Scott .

Ballantyne wrote to Murray in March:—

“Constable, I am told, has consulted Sir Samuel Romilly, and means, after writing a book against me, to prosecute me for stealing his plans! Somebody has certainly stolen his brains!”

The sales of the first number were not sufficiently large to remove Mr. Murray’s anxiety for the future, and on March 13 we find James Ballantyne writing to encourage him.

“You will be pleased to hear that Mr. Scott pronounces your letter* to be one of the most excellent and judicious he ever read. Indeed, Murray, so it is, a most capital letter. Fear nothing, my dear Murray, stout hearts and clear heads are united with you in a noble cause, and IT WILL TRIUMPH!”

Scott also alludes to the same subject in the following—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, March 19th, 1809. My dear Sir,

I have your long and interesting letter. To me, who am acquainted with bookselling phrase, it is needless to say that a steady and respectable sale is just better than no sale at all. Here we have been more fortunate. Ballantyne has only about 30 left out of the last 200 received by sea, and thinks he could easily have sold double the number forwarded. Many announced themselves as steady customers, and I have no doubt you may sell 1000 in Scotland quarterly. B. has never had his parcel two days on his hands.

I have written a long and most pressing letter to Mr. Gifford, which I hope may have some effect. I see the faults you point out, but hardly know how to prevent them at this distance. I think you had better call on the Lord Advocate as from yourself, and state the necessity of my coming to town. I mention this because it is in his power to hasten my journey thither on some public business which may otherwise lie over for months; this, however, you need not hint to him, but barely state your regret that I have written to you dubiously on the subject of coming up, and the advantage my doing so would be to the Review. To me it is quite the same thing whether I come up now, or later in the summer, but to you it may be very different, for I see matters are between the winning and losing. And, to say truth, it would be an inconvenient crusade for me to come up this month on my own expense when I am sure to be called up the next on that of the public.

I have found means to get at Mr. G., and have procured a letter to be written to him, which may possibly produce

* The letter here referred to has unfortunately not been preserved.

one to you signed Rutherford or Richardson, or some such name, and dated from the North of England; or, if he does not write to you, enquiry is to be made whether he would choose you should address him. The secrecy to be observed in this business must be most profound, even to Ballantyne and all the world. If you get articles from him (which will and must draw attention) you must throw out a false scent for enquirers. I believe this unfortunate man will soon be in London.

It is very ill proposed to give Sydney Smith’s sermons to Ireland, and the thing must not be. I intend to write to Mr. Gifford by post, begging them for Mr. Erskine. He and I know the man, and surely will manage the affair best.

Ballantyne gets possession of his shop in a few days. I mean he gets the workmen out of it, and enters business with the fairest auspices; prudence and firmness on his part cannot fail to establish him in the first rate in this place. His making a stand is most essential to the Review, and all our other plans for every other bookseller here has sunk under the predominating influence of Constable’s house, and they literally dare not call their souls their own.

Walter Scott .

In reply, Mr. Murray wrote on March 24th to Mr. Scott, urging him to come to London, and offering, “if there be no plea for charging your expenses to Government,” to “undertake that the Review shall pay them as far as one hundred guineas.” To this Scott replied—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, March 27th, 1809.

I have only time to give a very short answer to your letter. Some very important business detains me here till Monday or Tuesday, on the last of which days at farthest I will set off for town, and will be with you of course at the end of the week. As to my travelling expenses, if Government pay me, good and well; if they do not, depend on it I will never take a farthing from you. You have, my good friend, enough of expense to incur in forwarding this great and dubious undertaking, and God forbid I should add so unreasonable a charge as your liberality points at. I am very frank in money matters, and always take my price when I think I can give money’s worth for money, but this is quite extravagant, and you must think no more of it. Should I want money for any purpose I will readily make you my banker and give you value in reviews. John Ballantyne’s last remittance continues to go off briskly; the devil’s in you in London, you don’t know good writing when you get it. All depends on our cutting in before the next Edinburgh, when instead of following their lead they shall follow ours.

Mrs. Scott is my fellow-traveller in virtue of an old promise.

I am, dear Sir, yours truly, Walter Scott .

April 4th, at night. I have been detained a day later than I intended, but set off to-morrow at mid-day. I believe I shall get franked, so will have my generosity for nothing. I hope to be in London on Monday.

On receiving his payment for the article on ‘Medals,’ Mr. Barré Charles Roberts communicated his thanks to Mr. Murray as follows:—

“I have received your draught from Mr. Gifford, and beg to return you many thanks. Were I to regard it as a reward, I could not in conscience help saying that it is far beyond my very poor deserts. But I fully enter into the very liberal and honourable motives which have regulated the principles on which the Quarterly Review is established.”

The most constant critic of the articles published in the Quarterly was Mr. George Ellis. He had been connected with the enterprise from the first, and felt himself in a measure responsible for its success. Immediately on the publication of the first number, he gave Mr. Murray his opinion as to the merits of the articles. He compared the number with the last Edinburgh, which, he said, was “the very best that has yet appeared.” Yet his opinion of the first number of the Quarterly was “not discouraging.” He thought that Scott’s article on ‘Burns’s Reliques’ was the best, though the other was “capital.” Southey’s article on the Missionaries was “uncommonly excellent.” He praised Turner’s Sanscrit article, as well as Dr. Young’s on Laplace. “Upon the whole,” he said, “I am at least tolerably satisfied; but you are the person to whom we must all look for the opinion of the public. I have tried to obtain a recruit in the person of Mr. Park, the editor of Bolingbroke’s later letters.”

In sending out copies of the first number, Mr. Murray was not forgetful of one friend who had taken a leading part in originating the Review.

In 1808 Mr. Stratford Canning, when only twenty years of age, had been selected to accompany Mr. Adair on a special mission to Constantinople. The following year, on Mr. Adair being appointed H. B. M. Minister to the Sublime Porte, Stratford Canning became Secretary of Legation. Mr. Murray wrote to him:—

John Murray to Mr. Stratford Canning.

32, Fleet St., London, March 12th, 1809. Dear Sir,

It is with no small degree of pleasure that I send, for the favour of your acceptance, the first number of the Quarterly Review, a work which owes its birth to your obliging countenance and introduction of me to Mr. Gifford. I flatter myself that upon the whole you will not be dissatisfied with our first attempt, which is universally allowed to be so very respectable. Had you been in London during its progress, it would, I am confident, have been rendered more deserving of public attention. We need, indeed, the exertion of great energy to counteract the baneful effects of the widely circulating and dangerous principles of the E. R. which becomes, if possible, more immoral and certainly more openly Jacobinical—and the sale of this work has arisen to the enormous extent of eleven thousand!

It is unnecessary for me to inform you that your friends are the principal writers and patrons of the Quarterly Review and that Mr. G—— is the editor. I find that, upon comparison with the E. R., we are thought to want spirit, and we require a succession of novelty to attract public attention before we shall be sufficiently read to render our counteracting arguments and principles decidedly serviceable to our cause. It will, I fear, be hoping too much to think that you have time to favour us with an article yourself during your present occupation, but if you would collect and send over foreign works of any and every kind in any language, if they have either importance or interest either for their literature or politics, it would very essentially oblige Mr. G——, and serve the cause, for by giving an account of books and subjects which the E. R. cannot have access to we shall provoke public attention, and by this means be able to insinuate and to circulate our better doctrines in Church and State. I am very willing to undergo any expense for foreign works of any kind, and I entreat the favour of you to lose no opportunity of forwarding them either by land or sea. Foreign journals, if occasionally transmitted by couriers, would be extremely valuable. I trust that you will do me the favour to pardon this intrusion respecting the Review, but as you have been so unquestionably instrumental to its foundation, I am very ambitious of rendering you its patron also. It will afford me infinite pleasure to hear of your health and advancement.

I shall ever be, with the highest esteem, dear Sir,

Your obliged and faithful servant, John Murray .

Mr. Stratford Canning to John Murray.

“With regard to the commission which you have given me, it is, I fear, completely out of my power to execute it. Literature neither resides at Constantinople nor passes through it. Even were I able to obtain the publications of France and Germany by way of Vienna, the road is so circuitous, that you would have them later than others who contrive to smuggle them across the North Sea. Every London newspaper that retails its daily sixpennyworth of false reports, publishes the French, the Hamburgh, the Vienna, the Frankfort, and other journals, full as soon as we receive any of them here. This is the case at all times; at present it is much worse. We are entirely insulated. The Russians block up the usual road through Bucharest, and the Servians prevent the passage of couriers through Bosnia. And in addition to these difficulties, the present state of the Continent must at least interrupt all literary works. You will not, I am sure, look upon these as idle excuses. Things may probably improve, and I will not quit this country without commissioning some one here to send you anything that may be of use to so promising a publication as your Review.”

No sooner was one number published, than preparations were made for the next. Every periodical is a continuous work—never ending, still beginning. New contributors must be gained; new books reviewed; new views criticised. Mr. Murray was, even more than the Editor, the backbone of the enterprise: he was indefatigable in soliciting new writers for the Quarterly, and in finding the books fit for review, and the appropriate reviewers of the books. Sometimes the reviews were printed before the Editor was consulted, but everything passed under the notice of Gifford, and received his emendations and final approval.

Mr. Murray went so far as to invite Leigh Hunt to contribute an article on Literature or Poetry for the Quarterly Review. The reply came from John Hunt, Leigh’s brother. He said:

Mr. John Hunt to John Murray.

“My brother some days back requested me to present to you his thanks for the polite note you favoured him with on the subject of the Review, to which he should have been most willing to have contributed in the manner you propose, did he not perceive that the political sentiments contained in it are in direct opposition to his own.”

This was honest, though it did not interfere with the personal intercourse of the publisher and the poet. Murray afterwards wrote to Scott: “Hunt is most vilely wrong-headed in politics, which he has allowed to turn him away from the path of elegant criticism, which might have led him to eminence and respectability.”

Mr. Murray, having applied to Professor Thomson of Edinburgh for an article for the Review, the Professor expressed his perfect willingness to write, as he approved of its sentiments and spirit. At the same time he said:

Professor Thomson to John Murray.

“Success, however, you will find difficult, partly because the Edinburgh Review has already established its reputation with the public, and partly because it is much easier to write with spirit, and to please the reader by a universal and unmerciful system of attack, than by fair, candid, and enlightened criticism. Every one is delighted to see an author cut up, but few are judges of the talents and knowledge necessary to give an honest and comprehensive view of a good work.”

James Mill, author of the ‘History of British India,’ sent an article for the second number; but the sentiments and principles not being in accordance with those of the Editor, it was not at once accepted. On learning this, he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:

Mr. James Mill to John Murray.

My dear Sir,

I can have no objection in the world to your delaying the article I have sent you till it altogether suits your arrangements to make use of it. Besides this point, a few words of explanation may not be altogether useless with regard to another. I am half inclined to suspect that the objection of your Editor goes a little farther than you state. If so, I beg you will not hesitate a moment about what you are to do with it. I wrote it solely with a view to oblige and to benefit you personally, but with very little idea, as I told you at our first conversation on the subject, that it would be in my power to be of any use to you, as the views which I entertained respecting what is good for our country were very different from the views entertained by the gentlemen with whom in your projected concern you told me you were to be connected. To convince you, however, of my good-will, I am perfectly ready to give you a specimen, and if it appears to be such as likely to give offence to your friends, or not to harmonize with the general style of your work, commit it to the flames without the smallest scruple. Be assured that it will not make the smallest difference in my sentiments towards you, or render me in the smallest degree less disposed to lend you my aid (such as it is) on any other occasion when it may be better calculated to be of use to you.

Yours very truly, J. Mill .

Gifford was not a man of business; he was unpunctual, and the second number of the Quarterly appeared behind its time. Mr. William Erskine of Edinburgh, one of the contributors to the Quarterly, contrasting the punctual appearance of the Edinburgh with the dilatoriness of its competitor, wrote to Mr. Murray: “It is a pity that your Palinurus is so much less vigilant and active.” The publisher felt himself under the necessity of expostulating with the Editor.

John Murray to Mr. Gifford.

May 11th, 1809. Dear Mr. Gifford,

I begin to suspect that you are not aware of the complete misery which is occasioned to me, and the certain ruin which must attend the Review, by our unfortunate procrastination. Long before this, every line of copy for the present number ought to have been in the hands of the printer. Yet the whole of the Review is yet to print. I know not what to do to facilitate your labour, for the articles which you have long had lie scattered without attention, and those which I ventured to send to the printer undergo such retarding corrections, that even by this mode we do not advance. I entreat the favour of your exertion. For the last five months my most imperative concerns have yielded to this, without the hope of my anxiety or labour ceasing. “Tanti miserere laboris,” in my distress and with regret from

John Murray.

On the following day, Mr. Murray sent the Editor an article by Mr. Sharon Turner on the ‘Character of Buonaparte,’—à propos of the campaign in Italy, and pressing for its acceptance. Mr. Gifford replied that he had given it to Mr. Canning to consider. Then he proceeded:

“The delay and confusion which have arisen must be attributed to a want of confidential communication. In a word, you have too many advisers, and I too many masters. I can easily account, and still more easily allow, for the anxiety which you feel in a cause where so much of your property is embarked, and which you will always find me most ready to benefit and advance; but for this it will be necessary to have no reserves; in a word, we must understand each other.”

The truth is, that the arrangements for the editing, printing, and publication of the Quarterly had not yet fairly settled into working order. It takes time and experience to ensure for a periodical its punctual appearance regularly on the day and at the hour announced to the public. The Editor and the publisher were perhaps both in some measure at fault. They could only look forward to greater promptitude and punctuality in the future.

At last the second number of the Quarterly appeared, at the end of May instead of at the middle of April. The new contributors to this number were Dr. D’Oyley, the Rev. Mr. Walpole, and George Canning, who, in conjunction with Sharon Turner, contributed the last article on Austrian State Papers.

As soon as the second number was published, Mr. Gifford, whose health was hardly equal to the constant strain of preparing and editing the successive numbers, hastened away, as was his custom, to the seaside. He wrote to Mr. Murray from Ryde:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. June 18th, 1809.

“I rejoice to hear of our success, and feel very anxious to carry it further. A fortnight’s complete abstraction from all sublunary cares has done me much good, and I am now ready to put on my spectacles and look about me. . . . Hoppner is here, and has been at Death’s door. The third day after his arrival, he had an apoplectic fit, from which blisters, &c., have miraculously recovered him. . . . This morning I received a letter from Mr. Erskine. He speaks very highly of the second number, and of the Austrian article, which is thought its chief attraction. Theology, he says, few people read or care about. On this, I wish to say a word seriously. I am sorry that Mr. E. has fallen into that notion, too general I fear in Scotland; but this is his own concern. I differ with him totally, however, as to the few readers which such subjects find; for as far as my knowledge reaches, the reverse is the fact. The strongest letter which I have received since I came down, in our favour, points out the two serious articles as masterly productions and of decided superiority. We have taught the truth I mention to the Edinburgh Review, and in their last number they have also attempted to be serious, and abstain from their flippant impiety. It is not done with the best grace, but it has done them credit, I hear. . . . When you make up your parcel, pray put in some small cheap ‘Horace,’ which I can no more do without than Parson Adams ex ‘Æschylus.’ I have left it somewhere on the road. Any common thing will do.”

Mr. Murray sent Gifford a splendid copy of ‘Horace’ in the next parcel of books and manuscripts. In his reply Gifford said:

“There is no end of writing, for I seem to have ten reams of things to say. Your ‘Horace’ I should have accepted with much more pleasure if it had not been so magnificent. Why, my dear sir, will you do those things?”

Mr. George Ellis was, as usual, ready with his criticism.

Mr. George Ellis to John Murray.

“I have great satisfaction in being able to say that it is, in my opinion, incomparably better than the preceding number; indeed so good that, if we take care not to degenerate, we may look forward with confidence to ultimate success. I confess that, to my taste, the long article on the New Testament is very tedious, and that the progress of Socinianism is, to my apprehension, a bugbear which we have no immediate reason to be scared by; but it may alarm some people, and what I think a dull prosing piece of orthodoxy may have its admirers, and promote our sale. At all events one such article will not, while there is a good deal of spirit in the rest, materially injure it ‘Amelie Mansfield’ is, I think, the weakest article in the whole, but not below mediocrity. On the other hand, I think that Scott’s ‘Wyoming’ is better than Jeffrey’s, and that upon the whole we decidedly surpass the E. R. this time. Sydney Smith is in such a passion, that his humour is coarser than ever, and the critique upon him in our number will not, probably, allay his fury.”

The Ballantynes were also loud in their praise of the new number; 750 copies in all were sent to Edinburgh. James Ballantyne wrote to Mr. Murray:

“Mr. Erskine, my brother, and myself, think it admirable. . . . The outcry here for it is very strong. My private subscribers have increased considerably; and the demand for the trade also is more general.”

Constable had also a good word to say of it. In a letter to his partner, Hunter, then in London, he said:

“I received the Quarterly Review yesterday, and immediately went and delivered it to Mr. Jeffrey himself. It really seems a respectable number, but what then? Unless theirs improves and ours falls off it cannot harm us, I think. I observe that Nos. 1 and 2 extend to merely twenty-nine sheets, so that, in fact, ours is still the cheaper of the two. Murray’s waiting on you with it is one of the wisest things I ever knew him do: you will not be behindhand with him in civility.”

No. 3 of the Quarterly> was also late, and was not published until the end of August. The contributors were behindhand; besides, an article was expected from Canning on Spain, and the publication was postponed until this article had been received, printed and corrected. The foundations of it were laid by George Ellis, and it was completed by George Canning. Ellis was as indefatigable as ever. He had two articles in the number—one on West Indian, and the other on Spanish affairs. With respect to the latter, he wrote to Mr. Murray towards the end of August:

Mr. George Ellis to John Murray.

“I have had a large mass of materials to read and even to study; and I wish that Canning should see and, if necessary, correct what I have done. He wishes it also, but has suggested to me that it would be pleasanter to him to see it in print. I therefore send you what I have written. Pray get it printed, if it be possible, immediately, and send me down a proof by Friday’s post, as he promises to be with me on Saturday.”

The article was printed and sent down to Sunning Hill, near Staines, where Mr. Ellis was living at the time. It was corrected and partly rewritten by Mr. Canning, and duly appeared as the concluding article of No. 3.

In returning the corrected proof to the publisher, Mr. Ellis wrote:

Mr. George Ellis to John Murray. August 21st.

“I have now the satisfaction to send you the Spanish article complete. It will prove, I believe, a great deal longer than I expected; but it will, I trust, fully answer all your expectations, and, I feel confident, will eclipse the merit of any article which has ever yet appeared, or is likely to appear, in the rival Review. You will not suppose that I speak thus of that part of it which is my own; but of the general conclusion (for which you applied to me), and which, with the exception of the first paragraph in it, is by a master hand . . . How soon shall we come out? and what do you think generally of the other articles in this number?”

Mr. Gifford wrote:—

“In consequence of my importunity, Mr. Canning has exerted himself and produced the best article that ever yet appeared in any Review.”

Mr. Murray, so far as can be ascertained from his statement to Constable,* thought the number a very bad one, while the Edinburgh Review was “the best they had yet published.” “I told him,” said Constable, “I presumed he was quizzing; he said not.” Gifford, on the other hand, thought the number a very good one. There was an admirable article by Dr. Thomas Young on “Insanity,” and another by the Rev. Dr. D’Oyley on “Paley,” which Gifford thought was “his best.” Mr. Scott was busily occupied with the second volume of the ‘Minstrelsy,’ as well as with the ‘Lady of the Lake,’ and therefore he contributed no article to the number.† The new

* ‘Archibald Constable and his Literary Correspondents,’ i. 145.

† Mr. Murray, in a letter to Mrs. Murray, then at Edinburgh, on a visit to Mrs. Elliot, said (July 28th, 1809), “I have been in a sad plight all day about my Review. We are going on very indifferently; and a letter from William Erskine to-day informs me that Mr. Scott does not intend, he believes, to write anything for the present Number. This is vexatious, and I have been up to Gifford to ask him to write to Mr. Scott urgently.”

contributors were Dr. Thomas Thomson of Edinburgh; Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Sayers, and—a name which was to become most intimately connected with the Quarterly—John Wilson Croker.

Although Mr. Gifford was sometimes the subject of opprobrium because of his supposed severity, we find that in many cases he softened down the tone of the reviewers. For instance, in communicating to Mr. Murray the first part of Dr. Thomson’s article on the “Outlines of Mineralogy,” by Kidd, he observed:

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“It is very splenitick and very severe, and much too wantonly so. I hope, however, it is just. Some of the opprobrious language I shall soften, for the eternal repetitions of ignorance, absurdity, surprising, &c., are not wanted. I am sorry to observe so much Nationality in it. Let this be a secret between us, for I will not have my private opinions go beyond yourself. As for Kidd. he is a modest, unassuming man, and is not to be attacked with sticks and stones like a savage. Remember, it is only the epithets which I mean to soften; for as to the scientific part, it shall not be meddled with.

“As for Mr. Pillans, it is an unpleasant business; but for these things I find we must be prepared. The fact is, that his principles in some things do not accord with those of the Review, and I was forced to review him. He is a learned and ingenious young man, but he wants penetration. To be the drudge of Arthur Young and that shallow coxcomb Pinckney, is not creditable to him. Yet I think that he may be very serviceable to us, and, at any rate, he is young enough to make the loss of a few hours’ labour for improvement of no great consequence to him. He will write better every day, and when he can throw France and America out of his list of Paradises, and their blind admirers out of his list of Philosophers, he will make a most valuable man. As for you and me, let us remember that mutual confidence and secrecy are the keystone of success, and that an important charge rests upon us, which is worth much of our serious attention.”

His faithful correspondent, Mr. Ellis, wrote as to the quality of this number of the Quarterly. He agreed with Mr. Murray, that though profound, it was “most notoriously and unequivocally dull;” that he had not been able to find any one willing to read at all the ponderous essay upon the Greek Article, or the disquisition about Gothic Architecture. Mr. Gifford, he said, was too patient and laborious; he spent too much of his time in making annotations, and attempting to elicit a rational meaning from the shapeless lumps of criticism laid before him. In fact, he said, we want wit and variety. We require a selection of spirited and playful articles, rather than those of scholarship and profundity. We must veto ponderous articles; they will simply sink us.

Mr. Ellis to John Murray.

“I am convinced,” he added, “that we are, at present, too few; that the persons on whom we principally depend could not, conveniently to themselves, and therefore would not, undertake to fill four Reviews in a year. I am in great doubt whether we shall soon produce a number containing as much intrinsic solid merit as the last, dull as it unquestionably was. But, as I have already said, it is very easy to avoid that dulness which arises only from uniformity, since, for this purpose, nothing more is necessary than to select, in each number, three or four articles which are capable of being treated with pleasantry, and to allot them to the persons best able to treat them in such a manner. If, to come at once to the point, you can suggest at present one or two of such articles to me, I will undertake them, and will readily employ my influence, if I possess any, with Gifford and W. Scott, to do the same with two or three more. This will at least render the tone and colouring of our next number sufficiently different from the last.”

Isaac D’Israeli also tendered his advice. He was one of Mr. Murray’s most intimate friends, and could speak freely and honestly to him as to the prospects of the Review. He was at Brighton, preparing his third volume of the ‘Curiosities of Literature.’

Mr. I. D’Israeli to John Murray.

“I have bought the complete collection of Memoirs written by individuals of the French nation, amounting to sixty-five volumes, for fifteen guineas. . . . What can I say about the Q. R. ? Certainly nothing new; it has not yet invaded the country. Here it is totally unknown, though as usual the Ed. Rev. is here; but among private libraries, I find it equally unknown. It has yet its fortune to make. You must appeal to the feelings of Gifford! Has he none then? Can’t you get a more active and vigilant Editor? But what can I say at this distance? The disastrous finale of the Austrians, received this morning, is felt here as deadly. Buonaparte is a tremendous Thaumaturgus! . . . I wish you had such a genius in the Q. R. . . . My son Ben assures me you are in Brighton. He saw you! Now, he never lies.”*

In another letter (Sept. 12) Mr. D’Israeli referred more particularly to the contents of No. 3.

“On the whole,” he said, “it is a good number, though it has several articles objectionable in point of merit. The article on ‘Insanity’ by no means answers to the high account that was given of it. There is a good deal of writing, and a paucity of thinking in it, and it ends in nothing. There are but few articles in the Review. If this spirit of dissertation is too much encouraged, we may live to see a Quarterly Review composed on only one book! . . . The public want your Review. I always insisted on this. But I do not like the management, and I had hopes that ere now you would cease to trifle with them. I know your difficulties. . . . As for your political friends, one hardly knows if they do exist, or how they exist, such is their debility! What have they done for you? I think you ought now to consider for yourself, that the Review itself is at stake—not they! Perhaps they may be swept away before your next

* Mr. Murray was in Brighton at the time.

Quarterly, We cannot command things always, but it is greatly to be regretted that you cannot have so important a machine as this made to act as you wish. One thing in its favour is this, that it is not like a work which when not done well, cannot be done again; a Review admits of improvement, and one or two good numbers may bring it prominently forward. Like our Constitution, it may contain in itself a renovating power.”

Referring to Mrs. D’Israeli, who was suffering from indisposition, he said:

“If ever she regains her health, it will be an affair of Time; a physician, who indeed is not greedy of his fees, but who is very tedious in his cures.

“Pray remember me to Elliot.* I am very happy in perceiving that you are in the bosom of your family with that relish of domestic pleasures which a good man and, indeed a fortunate man, only can enjoy.”

Thus pressed by his correspondents, Mr. Murray did his best to rescue the Quarterly from failure. Though it brought him into prominent notice as a publisher, it was not by any means paying its expenses. Some thought it doubtful whether “the play was worth the candle.” Yet Murray was not a man to be driven back by comparative want of success. He would try, again and again. He had many friends who were willing to help him, and who would have felt his failure as if it had been their own. He buckled again to the work, and in conjunction with Gifford, prepared for the fourth number of the Quarterly. He endeavoured to procure a better array of contributors. Amongst these were some very eminent men: Mr. John Barrow of the Admiralty; the Rev. Reginald Heber, Mr. Robert Grant (afterwards Sir Robert, the Indian judge), Mr. Stephens, &c. How

* Mr. Murray was in Edinburgh at the time. Elliot, his brother-in-law.

Mr. Barrow was induced to become a contributor is thus explained in his Autobiography.*

“One morning, in the summer of the year 1809, Mr. Canning looked in upon me at the Admiralty, said he had often troubled me on business, but he was now about to ask me a favour. ‘I believe you are acquainted with my friend William Gifford?’ ‘By reputation,’ I said, ‘but not personally.’ ‘Then,’ says he, ‘I must make you personally acquainted; will you come and dine with me at Gloucester Lodge any day, the sooner the more agreeable—say tomorrow, if you are disengaged?’ On accepting, he said, ‘I will send for Gifford to meet you; I know he will be too glad to come.’

“‘Now,’ he continued, ‘it is right I should tell you that, in the Review of which two numbers have appeared, under the name of the Quarterly, I am deeply, both publicly and personally, interested, and have taken a leading part with Mr. George Ellis, Hookham Frere, Walter Scott, Rose, Southey, and some others; our object in that work being to counteract the virus scattered among His Majesty’s subjects through the pages of the Edinburgh Review. Now, I wish to enlist you in our corps, not as a mere advising idler, but as an efficient labourer in our friend Gifford’s vineyard.’ My reply was, ‘I am afraid you will be disappointed, for I have not the least notion how to set about writing a Review, and one from me would only serve as a foil to the brilliant productions of the gentlemen you have mentioned; besides, I should tremble in submitting my crude observations to the scrutinizing eye of such a critic as Mr. Gifford.’ ‘He will be overjoyed to have you, and will tell you that he who could write “Travels in Southern Africa,” and the “British Embassy to the Emperor of China,” can never find himself at a loss to review the work of any writer, provided he understands the subject.’

“‘There is one thing,’ he added, ‘I must mention to you. It is intended, and, indeed, the Editor has been instructed, that every writer in the Review, without any distinction, is to be paid for whatever he produces; that is a point about which no difficulty is to be made. I can assure you I myself have received pay for a short article I have already

* ‘Autobiographical Memoir of Sir John Barrow,’ Murray, 1847.

contributed, merely to set the example. Gifford will tell you the rest to-morrow.’

“We met, and Gifford told me all that Mr. Canning had said, and a great deal more, and would not listen to any objection I offered on the score of novelty and my inexperience of reviewing; he repeated Canning’s observation that the writer of books can have no difficulty in reviewing books, which I, on the contrary, urged to be a non sequitur. He begged me to name any book to make choice of, which he would take care to send to me. Finding there was no getting rid of Gifford, I mentioned one I had just been reading, De Guignes’s ‘History of the Dutch Embassy to China,’ which immediately followed ours. ‘Bravo! by all means let me have De Guignes and the Dutch Ambassador to the Court of the Emperor of China, it is a subject of all others I should wish for; it is one at your fingers’ ends, and one that few know anything about; pray, let me have it for the forthcoming number; three only have yet appeared, and I’m gasping for something new. Pray, my good fellow, do indulge me.’ . . .

“I had a visit from him the next morning after the meeting at Gloucester Lodge, and told him that the ‘Voyage a Peking’ was already laid down on the stocks, and should be ready for launching when required. He was very thankful, and professed his obligations in warm terms. ‘But,’ he added, ‘the Quarterly has a most voracious maw, and requires to have her food very regularly served up at fixed times; would you, now, think me unreasonable if I were to suggest a second article for No. 5?’ I laughed and said, ‘It would be well, perhaps, for both of us to wait the reception of the one just commenced.’ However, he subsequently carried his point, and I not only gave him ‘Voyages d’Entrecasteaux’ for No. 5, but ‘Ta-tsing-leu-lee, or The Laws of China;’ and I may add, once for all, that what with Gifford’s eager and urgent demands, and the exercise becoming habitual and not disagreeable, I did not cease writing for the Quarterly Review till I had supplied no less, rather more, than 190 articles. . . . The number as above stated must appear enormously large, and yet they were written off-hand as an amusement, many of them in the busiest periods of official duties; but my evenings were generally spent at home with my family, and writing was to me a relaxation, after dinner, and a relief from the dry labours of the day. I may add that every article written for the Quarterly was sure to be followed by a long letter from Gifford, pointing out what would be a desirable subject for the next number, or asking me to name one. Mr. Murray also frequently suggested a new work for my consideration, and certainly showed himself quite satisfied with my performances.”

The fourth number of the Quarterly, which was due in November, was not published until the end of December 1809. Gifford’s excuse was the want of copy. He wrote to Mr. Murray: “We must, upon the publication of this number, enter into some plan for ensuring regularity.” Southey complained that the necessary books had not been sent him in time to prepare one of his articles. To Walter Scott, Southey wrote:

Mr. Southey to Mr. Scott. Oct. 2, 1809.

“I have a bill of indictment against those Eclectics and Vice-Society men, whenever Murray shall send me the needful documents; for, be it known unto you that in one of the Eclectic Reviews there is a grand passage describing the soul of Shakspeare in Hell! If I do not put some of these Pharisees into Purgatory for this, for the edification of our Quarterly Review readers, then may my right hand forget its cunning.”

A few days later, he wrote to Neville White:

“I have more respect for the Independents than for any other body of Christians, the Quakers alone excepted. . . . Their English history is without a blot. Their American has, unhappily, some bloody ones, which you will see noticed in the next number of the Quarterly, if my reviewal of Holmes’s American Annals should appear there in an unmutilated state.”

Although it appeared late, the fourth number was the best that had yet been issued. It was more varied in its contents; containing articles by Scott, Southey, Barrow, and Heber. But the most important article was contributed by Robert Grant, on the “Character of the late C. J. Fox.” This was the first article in the Quarterly, according to Mr. Murray, which excited general admiration, concerning which we find a memorandum in Mr. Murray’s own copy; and, what was an important test, it largely increased the demand for the Review.

CHAPTER VIII. PUBLISHING BUSINESS—THE ‘QUARTERLY’—CONSTABLE AND BALLANTYNE.

During the year in which the Quarterly was first given to the world, the alliance between Murray and the Ballantynes was close and intimate: their correspondence was not confined to business matters but bears witness to warm personal friendship.

Murray was able to place much printing work in their hands, and amongst other books, ‘Mrs. Rundell’s Cookery,’ which was then beginning to attain to a very large circulation, was printed at the Canongate Press.

They exerted themselves to promote the sale of one another’s publications and engaged in various joint works, such, for example, as Grahame’s ‘British Georgics’ and Scott’s ‘English Minstrelsy.’

In the midst of all these transactions, however, there were not wanting symptoms of financial difficulties, which, as in a previous instance, were destined in time to cause a severance between Murray and his Edinburgh agents. It was the old story—drawing bills for value not received. Murray had seriously warned the Ballantynes of the risks they were running in trading beyond their capital. James Ballantyne replied on March 30, 1809:—

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray.

“Suffer me to notice one part of your letter respecting which you will be happy to be put right. We are by no means trading beyond our capital. It requires no professional knowledge to enable us to avoid so fatal an error as that. For the few speculations we have entered into our means have been carefully calculated and are perfectly adequate.”

Yet at the close of the same letter, referring to the ‘British Novelists’—a vast scheme, to which Mr. Murray had by no means pledged himself—Ballantyne continues:

“For this work permit me to state I have ordered a font of types, cut expressly on purpose, at an expense of near £1000, and have engaged a very large number of compositors for no other object.”

On the 14th of June, James Ballantyne wrote to Murray:

“I can get no books out yet, without interfering in the printing office with business previously engaged for, and that puts me a little about for cash. Independent of this circumstance, upon which we reckoned, a sum of £1500 payable to us at 25th May, yet waiting some cursed legal arrangements, but which we trust to have very shortly (sic). This is all preliminary to the enclosures which I hope will not be disagreeable to you, and if not, I will trust to their receipt accepted, by return of post.”

Mr. Murray replied on the 20th of June:—

“I regret that I should be under the necessity of returning you the two bills which you enclosed, unaccepted; but having settled lately a very large amount with Mr. Constable, I had occasion to grant more bills than I think it proper to allow to be about at the same time.”

This was not the last application for acceptances, and it will be found that in the end it led to an entire separation between the firms.

The Ballantynes, however, buoyed up by rash hopes, and teeming with enterprise, were more sanguine than prudent. In spite of Mr. Murray’s warning that they were proceeding too rapidly with the publication of new works, they informed him that they had a “gigantic scheme” in hand—the ‘Tales of the East,’ translated by Henry Weber, Walter Scott’s private secretary—besides the ‘Edinburgh Encyclopædia,’ and the ‘Secret Memoirs of the House of Stewart.’ They said that Scott was interested in the ‘Tales of the East,’ and in one of their hopeful letters they requested Mr. Murray to join in their speculations. His answer was as follows:—

John Murray to Messrs. Ballantyne & Co. Oct. 31st, 1809.

“I regret that I cannot accept a share in the ‘Edinburgh Encyclopaedia.’ I am obliged to decline by motives of prudence. I do not know anything of the agreement made by the proprietors, except in the palpable mismanagement of a very exclusive and promising concern. I am therefore fearful to risk my property in an affair so extremely unsuitable.

“You distress me sadly by the announcement of having put the ‘Secret Memoirs’ to press, and that the paper for it was actually purchased six months ago! How can you, my good sirs, act in this way? How can you imagine that a bookseller can afford to pay eternal advances upon almost every work in which he takes a share with you? And how can you continue to destroy every speculation by entering upon new ones before the previous ones are properly completed? . . . Why, with your influence, will you not urge the completion of the ‘Minstrelsy’? Why not go on with and complete the series of De Foe? . . . For myself, I really do not know what to do, for when I see that you will complete nothing of your own, I am unwillingly apprehensive of having any work of mine in your power. What I thus write is in serious friendship for you. I entreat you to let us complete what we have already in hand, before we begin upon any other speculation. You will have enough to do to sell those in which we are already engaged. As to your mode of exchange and so disposing of your shares, besides the universal obloquy which attends the practice in the mind of every respectable bookseller, and the certain damnation which it invariably causes both to the book and the author, as in the case of Grahame, if persisted in, it must end in serious loss to the bookseller . . . If you cannot give me your solemn promise not to exchange a copy of Tasso, I trust you will allow me to withdraw the small share which I propose to take, for the least breath of this kind would blast the work and the author too—a most worthy man, upon whose account alone I engaged in the speculation.”

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray.

“We are sorry that the ‘Secret Memoirs’ going to press has occasioned you any uneasiness, but it is lucky it can be easily obviated. We shall, with your permission, keep all the book. I think I need scarcely add that I, who am so much more deeply interested than anybody else, have taken especial care that it neither interferes with De Foe, the ‘Tales,’ or any other work we have going on. . . . I do not wonder that you are apprehensive of trusting us with works to print, but I think the apprehension groundless; for, in order to keep the engagements in form, as well as our other accounts, you observe that we have even given up the ‘Encyclopædia.’ We certainly shall, in compliance with your desire, complete the engagements already entered into with you before we propose any new ones; and we must take our chance of selling our share in the books, in which perhaps you may be correct in supposing we have enough to do. . . . We beg, with yourself, to disclaim being actuated by any ill-temper in this letter. For your good wishes we thank you. For our success in life we must continue to pursue those means which, with rather a favourable result, we have done hitherto.”

The “alliance offensive and defensive” between Murray and the Ballantynes, in opposition to Constable & Co., which Scott had mentioned to Southey and Ellis, promised to be short-lived. Murray and Constable drew a little closer together. In fact Murray, who was doing a considerable business in London for the Edinburgh firm, wrote in November 1809 to Constable:—

“I find I have paid you nearly £7000 during the last twelve months, which, I think, is pretty well. You can draw upon me for the remainder at four months. £921 2s. 8d. is due on the 30th of this month.”

Constable looked with jealousy at the operations of the house of Ballantyne. Their firm had indeed been started in opposition to himself; and it was not without a sort of gratification that he heard of their pecuniary difficulties. Scott’s ‘Lady of the Lake’ had been announced for publication. Constablerefers to this circumstance, at the close of his letter to Murray:—

Mr. A. Constable to John Murray. Jan. 20th, 1810.

“I have no particular anxiety about promulgating the folly (to say the least of it) of certain correspondents of yours in this quarter; but if you will ask our friend Mr. Miller if he had a letter from a shop nearly opposite the Royal Exchange the other day, he will, I dare say, tell you of the contents. I am mistaken if their game is not well up! Indeed I doubt much if they will survive the ‘Lady of the Lake.’ She will probably help to drown them!”

An arrangement had been made with the Ballantynes that, in consideration of their being the sole agents for Mr. Murray in Scotland, they should give him the opportunity of taking shares in any of their publications. Instead, however, of offering a share of the ‘Lady of the Lake’ to Mr. Murray, according to the understanding between the firms, the Ballantynes had already parted with one fourth share of the work to Mr. Miller, of Albemarle Street, London, whose business was afterwards purchased by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray’s letter to Ballantyne & Co. thus describes the arrangement:—

John Murray to Messrs. Ballantyne & Co. March 26th, 1810.

“Respecting my Review, you appear to forget that your engagement was that I should be your sole agent here, and that you were to publish nothing but what I was to have the offer of a share in. Your deviation from this must have led me to conclude that you did not desire or expect to continue my agent any longer. You cannot suppose that my estimation of Mr. Scott’s genius can have rendered me indifferent to my exclusion from a share in the ‘Lady of the Lake.’ I mention this as well to testify that I am not indifferent to this conduct in you as to point it out to you, that if you mean to withhold from me that portion which you command of the advantages of our connexion, you must surely mean to resign any that might arise from me. The sole agency for my publications in Edinburgh is worth to any man who understands his business £300 a year; but this requires zealous activity and deference on one side, and great confidence on both, otherwise the connexion cannot be advantageous or satisfactory to either party. For this number of the Review I have continued your name solely in it, and propose to make you as before sole publisher in Scotland; but as you have yourself adopted the plan of drawing upon me for the amount of each transaction, you will do me the favour to consider what quantity you will need, and upon your remitting to me a note at six months for the amount, I shall immediately ship the quantity for you.”

Mr. James Ballantyne to John Murray.

“Your agency hitherto has been productive of little or no advantage to us, and the fault has not lain with us. We have persisted in offering you shares of everything begun by us, till we found the hopelessness of waiting any return; and in dividing Mr. Scott’s poem, we found it our duty to give what share we had to part with to those by whom we were chiefly benefited both as booksellers and printers.”

This letter was accompanied with a heavy bill for printing the works of De Foe for Mr. Murray. A breach thus took place with the Ballantynes; the publisher of the Quarterly was compelled to look out for a new agent for Scotland, and met with a thoroughly competent one in Mr. William Blackwood, the founder of the well-known publishing house in Edinburgh.

To return to the progress of the Quarterly. The fifth number, which was due in February 1810, but did not appear until the end of March, contained many excellent articles, though, as Mr. Ellis said, some of them were contributed by “good and steady but marvellously heavy friends.” Yet he found it better than the Edinburgh, which on that occasion was “reasonably dull.”

Mr. Scott to John Murray. February 10th, 1810.

“The Edinburgh has at length come forth and with a good deal of spirit; but we will be better prepared for them the next time, and at least divide the public with them. I hope soon to hear all my contributions have come to hand. Not a line yet from Sharpe* or Douglas. This is the true curse of gentlemen writers. Before I come to London I hope to have at least three veterans in constant pay. I mean men that will keep their engagements for an article each.”

That Mr. Murray kept a close eye upon the contents is clear from his numerous letters to Mr. Gifford. He suggested that a note reflecting on Playfair should be left out of the article by Dr. Young on Archimedes, and also that the article on Sydney Smith was not quite proper, and might be objected to. Gifford replies:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“I had softened the note, but I can have no objection to do anything further with it. When the proof comes back we will look at it together, though I think there is truth in your observation. Pray be careful to remember that the anonymous writer of ‘Ricardo’† is a different person from the anonymous writer of ‘Parr’ (Edinburgh Review),

* Kirkpatrick Sharpe, whom Scott had been endeavouring to press into the service.

† The authorship of this article cannot now be ascertained, but it was probably written by Mr. Ellis.

who, I was told this morning, was the Bishop of Bristol! Let us keep our own secrets, and we shall do well. I wish, for my part, that every writer in the Quarterly Review was unknown to me, and that not an article was heard of until it came out. Nothing is so hostile to our success as having too many confidants; but we shall grow wiser in time, I hope. Let us keep up our spirits, talk of the goodness of our ware, as the Edinburgh Reviewers and their friends do, and the world will do the rest.”

But the most important article in No. 5 was the last, by Robert Southey. It was the ‘Life of Nelson,’ founded upon the Lives written by various authors which had recently been published. While the review of Nelson was in progress, Southey wrote to his friend Mr. Rickman:—

“The Quarterly pays me well—ten guineas per sheet; at the same measure, the Annual was only four. I have the bulky ‘Life of Nelson’ on hand, and am to be paid double. This must be for the sake of saying they give twenty guineas per sheet, as I should have been well satisfied with ten, and have taken exactly the same pains.”

Southey did not recognise the generosity of the publisher. Perhaps he did not know that the Review was not then paying its expenses.

Gifford said of the article when he received it:—

“I have begun on ‘Nelson,’ and, though I have many erasures to make, I confess I think what remains very good.”

George Ellis said of it:—

“I am glad that Southey’s article is to be animated and inserted. My opinion is that his articles are always attractive; not indeed by their spirit, but by their candour, and by a luminous method and arrangement of his materials. Besides, he always conveys information, which is a great merit; and it will be, hereafter, on the value of your Review as a repertory of useful knowledge, much more than on the ingenuity of the reasonings and dis-quisitions it may contain, that its importance as a collection, and its consequent admission into libraries, will depend.”

In the course of the following year Mr. Murray induced Mr. Southey to expand his article in order that he might publish it as a separate volume: he wrote—

John Murray to Mr. Southey. Oct. 28th, 1811.

“You have so much upon your mind at this time that appears to be urgent, that I would be ashamed to mention the ‘Life of Nelson’ were it to press you for it, but the fact is that I think it so noble a subject for you in every respect, that I wish it to receive all your care and a good portion of what Turner calls the ‘prime’ of your mind. Besides inserting every fact respecting the Hero, it will admit of your patriotic display of our power as a nation, which we have ourselves underrated, and still do underrate. There is scarcely a Gazette published which does not detail acts of individual heroism that in any other nation would have immortalized the actors. I wish it to be made such a book as shall become the heroic text of every midshipman in the Navy, and the association of Nelson and Southey will not, I think, be ungrateful to you. If it be worth your attention in this way I am disposed to think that it will enable me to treble the sum I first offered as a slight remuneration.”

Although the ‘Life of Nelson’ is one of the most beautiful and attractive of Southey’s works, he himself said of it: “This is a subject which I should not have dreamt of touching if it had not been thrust upon me.” He received 100 guineas for the article, £100 for the enlargement of the Life, and £100 when it was afterwards published in the ‘Family Library.’

The fifth number of the Quarterly was received with general satisfaction, and met with considerable praise even at the hands of such a severe critic as George Ellis. Still the lack of punctuality, a fault which increased rather than diminished with each succeeding number, formed a most serious drawback to the success of the new periodical. Mr. Murray himself was greatly harassed by this perpetual irregularity. It was telling upon his health, and his friends feared that his constitution was breaking down. He was in this state when his old friend D’Israeli addressed him:—

Mr. Isaac D’Israeli to John Murray.

Montpelier Row, Blackheath, Aug. 2nd, 1810.

“I hope, my dear Murray, your stomach disorders do not proceed from harassing business, or any other cause of vexations from that source. Should they do so, in that case look well into the causes, and try whether they are not, by calmness and management, to be subdued and conducted by tolerable means. We may lose our balance in a moment, but sometimes a slight effort replaces us; yet if this slight effort be not made, our motion is all against us. I am only writing suggestions in the air, and request you will attribute them to the true motive. I flatter myself that, on the contrary, your success and industry in trade will serve to animate you with prospects of realized hopes. Forgive then my anxiety; but, as I know, when things do not go on smoothly, as they never can at all times, you are apt to be feelingly alive to them; and I attribute your complaints, in many respects, to the worry and cares of business. Now I conclude with a wise ancient saw of Lord Burleigh’s steward (I think) to his young master: ‘Be a good while in getting a little money, and you will then get a great deal afterwards in a short time. Lay the foundation safe and broad, and don’t hurry up the superstructure.’

“I know, dear Murray, I am writing in the dead stillness of a parlour, and in an easy chair—and the truest wisdom consists in action! However, lame persons have written some good dissertations on dancing. I thought it was now rather a dead season with you; and should have been glad to have had you and Mrs. M. for a little change down with us.

“I took the Q. R. with me. I like it well; and I do think it is far better than what you imagined it to be. The article on the ‘Fatal Revenge’ is exquisite in humour, and very ingenious in criticism. I long to get to the Chinese article—‘Ramayuna.’ I now conceive, when you have once established a regular period of publication, that you have good writers enough to secure a regular sale and an increasing one, besides the chance occasionally of getting at some great and commanding article. I know it has cost you too much anxiety; but I hope you can contrive to go on with less of that, and in time with a profit that will be worth your attention . . . . I hope you escape losses in the bankruptcies, among which are several bankers.”

It was certainly not “a dead season” with Mr. Murray. At the time that D’Israeli’s letter was written the August number was nearly due, though it was not yet half printed. Some of the articles were not even written, and Gifford suggested that the following notice should be placed on the cover of the forthcoming Review: “Unforeseen accidents have delayed the appearance of the present number; but arrangements have been made to ensure a more regular publication in future.”

Mr. Murray, writing to Mr. Scott (August 28th, 1810) as to the appearance of the new number, said:—

“I believe we shall have a super-excellent number this time. As far as we are already printed and promised, we are very good indeed.” After giving an account of the articles printed, he comes to the fourth article. “This,” he said, “is a review of the ‘Daughters of Isenberg, a Bavarian Romance,’ by Mr. Gifford, to whom the authoress (Alicia T. Palmer) had the temerity to send three £1 notes!”

With respect to this article, written by Gifford himself, for which the lady at Bath sent him a bribe of £3, instead of sending back the money with indignation, as he at first proposed, he reviewed the romance, and assumed that the authoress had sent him the money for charitable purposes.

Mr. Gifford to Miss A. T. Palmer.

“Our avocations leave us but little leisure for extra-official employment; and in the present case she has inadvertently added to our difficulties by forbearing to specify the precise objects of her bounty. We hesitated for some time between the Foundling and Lying-in Hospitals: in finally determining for the latter, we humbly trust that we have not disappointed her expectations, nor misapplied her charity. Our publisher will transmit the proper receipt to her address.”

A difference occurred between Mr. Murray and the editor with respect to the insertion of an article by the Rev. J. Davidson on “Oxford and Mr. Coplestone,” in answer to the calumnies of the Edinburgh Review.

“I thank you,” said Gifford to Murray, from Ryde, “for Coplestone, which I read with great pleasure; it is his chef-d’œuvre—very dexterous, very cutting, and very gentlemanlike.”

Mr. Murray replied:—

John Murray to Mr. Gifford.

I do entreat you to feel for me before you finally determine upon the insertion of the Oxford article. I cannot yet manage to make the Review pay its expenses, and it is only in the hope of having continually such a number as we expected to put forth this time, that I can in prudence proceed. The Oxford article can do Mr. Coplestone no service, because it is resting his argument upon a defence far inferior to his own in every respect. It will be of great evil to us; for everyone interested in the dispute will be disappointed if not disgusted with our having put forth, upon a subject so very difficult as regards ourselves, a weaker defence than they have previously read. It were hard to insert what I know would be so very prejudicial to me. I know indeed that you would not press it but for the dilemma in which its rejection would place you; but I think that a letter from you to Mr. C. would show it to be his own interest to retain it for the present; and the writer might be informed that Mr. C. wishes, before any more is published on the subject, to see if his adversaries answer his last reply.

Pitt arrived so late that it is impossible to get the number out this week. We may yet, therefore, hope for Crabbe, and this with Southey’s article on the Faroe Islands* will make a number good enough to apologise for a delay which otherwise carries ruin with it. For all this, I do most sincerely and devotedly rely upon your judgment and energy, in consideration of the great capital (nearly £5000) that I have embarked in this concern. I mention this for the purpose of showing that no ordinary man of business would have done this. But I will venture twice that sum upon what I know to be able. I have not yet, upon my honour, paid my expenses in any one single number of the Review. You will not be displeased, therefore, if I am over anxious to improve in every number, and desirous of printing the very best material that we can procure. I will only add that whatever I may say respecting the articles is entirely from the suggestion of my own point of view—I mean that I neither show them to, nor consult with, any friend of mine. Having mentioned this, I leave the whole entirely to you. I am only anxious for our mutual satisfaction.

Yours most truly, J. Murray .

Mr. Gifford was annoyed by this letter. He said it had an air of intimidation.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“There is no necessity for you to pursue a losing speculation, which I should be the last person on earth to encourage; and there is yet time, I presume, to recover a considerable part of that £5000 which you have so unwisely put in hazard. . . . But I wish not to prolong this strain. A little more will make me quite weary of a post which is far enough from a pleasant one. To come to the chief purport of your letter, I will send it to Mr. C. if you

* These two articles were not published until the following number appeared.

agree to abide by his answer; on no other condition will I consent to violate my feeling by affronting a gentleman of character and reputation—for such Mr. Davidson is. He purposely came to town to see his article. He has seen it, he has revised it, and returned it in the full expectation of its appearance. After all, I do not quite enter into your opinion of it. It is clear, sensible, and intelligent. I wish, indeed, it had more spirit and interest—so I do of many other articles which pass muster very well.”

Mr. Ellis also interfered. Although, he said, the article was at once “tedious and feeble,” yet there were two considerations on which he would plead for its admission: “First, the positive request of Coplestone himself; second, the utter impossibility of filling our number without it.” The article was accordingly inserted. On the 1st of October, Mr. Ellis wrote to the publisher:—

“Pray let me know when our Quarterly will decidedly appear; for I am pestered to death with questions about it.”

The number did not appear until a month and a half after it was due. This was enough to have killed any publication which was not redeemed by the excellence of its contents.

One of the principal objections of Mr. Murray to the manner in which Mr. Gifford edited the Quarterly was the war which he waged with the Edinburgh. This, he held, was not the way in which a respectable periodical should be conducted. It had a line of its own to pursue, without attacking its neighbours. “Publish,” he said, “the best information, the best science, the best literature; and leave the public to decide for themselves.” Relying on this opinion he warned Gifford and his friends against attacking Sydney Smith, and Leslie, and Jeffrey, because of their contributions to the Edinburgh. He thought that such attacks had only the effect of advertising the rival journal, and rendering it of greater importance. With reference to the article on Sydney Smith’s ‘Visitation Sermon’ in No. 5, Mr. George Ellis privately wrote to Mr. Murray:—

“Gifford, though the best-tempered man alive, is terribly severe with his pen; but S. S. would suffer ten times more by being turned into ridicule (and never did man expose himself so much as he did in that sermon) than from being slashed and cauterized in that manner.”

Mr. Murray even expostulated with Mr. Ellis himself, because of his reference to the Edinburgh Review in his article on ‘Clarke’s Travels’ in the seventh number.

Mr. Ellis to John Murray. Sept. 15th, 1810.

“I have now erased, in conformity with your wishes, some of the allusions to the E. R., and have left, indeed, only one prominent quotation from them (that relating to Astrachan); to evince the extreme bad taste of which I have, instead of making any comment of my own, subjoined a note at the bottom of the page from Bell’s very valuable ‘Travels.’ You will readily believe that I am never very anxious to enter the lists with our adversaries, and I generally wish to avoid it, because it is certain that, if in such a conflict we should ever be guilty of the sort of grossness which they employ, we should injure ourselves with rational readers. But I cannot agree with you in thinking that when they have formally thrown down the gauntlet (as they have done on the subject of Dr. Clarke), we are bound altogether to abstain from noticing their defiance, because, as they unquestionably possess, and, to a certain degree, deserve, a high reputation, we cannot, without a degree of affectation even more ridiculous than that of Sydney Smith, pretend a total ignorance of their opinions.”

After further explanations about the Oxford article in No. 7, Mr. Murray and Mr. Gifford went on again harmoniously.

John Murray to Mr. Gifford. Sept. 25th, 1810.

“I entreat you to be assured that the term ‘intimidation’ can never be applied to any part of my conduct towards you, for whom I entertain the highest esteem and regard, both as a writer and as a friend. If I am over-anxious, it is because I have let my hopes of fame as a bookseller rest upon the establishment and celebrity of this journal. My character, as well with my professional brethren as with the public, is at stake upon it; for I would not be thought silly by the one, or a mere speculator by the other. I have a very large business, as you may conclude by the capital I have been able to throw into this one publication, and yet my mind is so entirely engrossed, my honour is so completely involved in this one thing, that I neither eat, drink, nor sleep upon anything else. I would rather it excelled all other journals and I gained nothing by it, than gain £300 a year by it without trouble if it were thought inferior to any other. This, sir, is true.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Murray was becoming hard pressed for money. To conduct his increasing business required a large floating capital, for long credits were the custom, and besides his own requirements, he had to bear the constant importunities of the Ballantynes to renew their bills. On the 25th of July, 1810, he wrote to them: “This will be the last renewal of the bill (£300); when it becomes due, you will have the goodness to provide for it.” It was, however, becoming impossible to continue dealing with them, and he gradually transferred his printing business to other firms. We find him about this time ordering Messrs. George Ramsay & Co., Edinburgh, to print 8000 of the ‘Domestic Cookery,’ which was still having a large sale.

The Constables were also pressing him for renewals of bills.

John Murray to Messrs. Constable & Co.

Oct. 27th, 1810. Gentlemen,

I received to-day your £1000; the £500 at three days my bankers did for me as a favour, and thus I am, thank God, enabled to pay your bill to-day, and the two on Monday, amounting to £975. I trust that you do really feel sensible of the great uneasiness I must have undergone lately, and particularly in not hearing from you on Thursday and Friday, with these bills hanging over you, which I could not have stopped. I, for the last time, entreat you to remit me at least two whole days before your bills become due, and as much earlier as possible. It is actually your own interest, for many reasons, to do this. I have suffered excessively, and have borrowed, borrowed, borrowed, until I am ashamed. You must believe that my only motive for giving Mr. Elliot bills of my own for discount was urgent necessity. I had collected no others of discountable date, and in that case your bills upon me choked up my credit, and I could not avail myself of this means to my own service. I confide in your kindness to send me off to-morrow all that your letter of to-day promised. I send you some more bills, of which I would be thankful if you would send me £350, so that I may receive it on Tuesday the 12th.

Yours, etc., J. M.

The case became more urgent from day to day. Constable did not meet his bills, and took no notice of Murray’s repeated letters, six of which remained unanswered. At length Constable answered his communications, and Murray replied as follows:—

John Murray to Messrs. Constable. Nov. 24th, 1810.

“You will not have been long in alarm about my waiting the return of a letter from you, before I would accept your draft upon me for £500; but you have occasioned me so much distress lately by not attending either to my complaints or to your own promises of remitting to me in time for retiring your own bills, that you certainly deserved what the Bank Directors call a ‘rap over the knuckles.’ I would not endure a recurrence of the same for a premium of £300 per annum. In future advise with your drafts, and send me others payable one day before, in London.”

At a later date, when the Messrs. Constable offered him a share in certain new books about to appear, in conjunction with Cadell and Miller, Mr. Murray replied:—

John Murray to Messrs. Constable. March 21st, 1811.

“With regard to myself, I will engage in no new work of any kind. You know perfectly well how much I am hampered by the quantity I have already printed, and I will enter upon no new speculation until I have cleared myself. The shares which I took in your books whilst in London were taken from no other motive than that of personal regard to you, with the promise of twelve months’ credit, and extension if I required it; but I cannot go any further. You know, too, that my speculation in Campbell’s new work is enough for two years’ engagement. But I will do all I can to serve you, and this I would do for no other person, and it is privately and in strict confidence that I communicate it.”

Another letter of a similar character followed:—

John Murray to Mr. A. Constable.

April 4th, 1811. Dear Constable,

I have so invariably testified my desire to serve you, that I could have wished that you had not pressed the share in ‘Seward’ again, after what I stated to you upon that subject in my last. You know how much I have distressed myself by entering heedlessly upon too many engagements, and you must be sensible that I could not, under so much consequent vexation, have taken shares in many of your speculations, unless it had been from the sole motive of showing my continued regard to you by relieving your pressing anxiety. If you need any further proof of this, I can only say that I will resign the whole to your disposal, but you must not urge me to involve myself in renewed difficulties.

To return to the Quarterly No. 8. One can easily imagine the anxiety and distress of the publisher when, owing to the repeated delay in publication, the circulation fell off from 5000 to 4000. Gifford himself often thought of giving up the editorship; he felt that his physical strength was insufficient for the proper care and management of the still struggling periodical.

Mr. George Ellis, the faithful friend of the publisher, clearly saw the injury done to the progress of the Quarterly. He wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. George Ellis to John Murray.

“To our extensive success there is at present, very obviously, only one intelligible obstacle, which is a degree of irregularity which must of necessity induce in the public mind a doubt of our ultimate perseverance. Those who perceive that we are from quarter to quarter less and less punctual, must infer from it that we feel progressively more and more the difficulty of fulfilling our engagements, and are likely in a short time to abandon the enterprise in despair. No opinion of the merit of our Review will or can support us against this supposition . . . Hence I infer that punctuality is, in our present situation, our great and only desideratum. This we must attain. Whether we precede or follow our rivals is immaterial; but the days of publication once fixed, we must adhere to them.”

Accordingly, increased efforts were made to have the Quarterly published with greater punctuality, though it was a considerable time before success in this respect was finally reached. Gifford pruned and pared down to the last moment, and often held back the publication until an erasure or a correction could be finally inserted.

No. 9 due in February 1811, was not published until March. From this time Southey became an almost constant contributor to the Review. He wrote with ease, grace, and rapidity, and there was scarcely a number without one, and sometimes two and even three articles from his pen. His prose style was charming—clear, masculine, and to the point, but he prided himself more upon his poetry than upon his prose. The public did not see his merits in the same light, for while they eagerly read his prose, his poetry remained unnoticed on the shelves. In December 1807, Southey said he had gained only £25 by ‘Madoc,’ and in the following year, his ‘Thalaba’ fell still-born from the press. “My whole profits upon it,” he said, “have amounted to five-and-twenty pounds. But I cast my bread upon the waters, and if I myself should’ not live to find it after many days, my children will.”

The ‘Curse of Kehama’ came out in 1810, and notwithstanding Walter Scott’s kindly review of it, the work did not sell. Southey said of the poem:—

“With regard to ‘Kehama,’ I was perfectly aware that I was planting acorns while my contemporaries were setting Turkey beans. The oak will grow, and though I may never sit under its shade, my children will. Of the ‘Lady of the Lake,’ 25,000 copies have been printed; of ‘Kehama,’ 500; and if they sell in seven years, I shall be surprised.”

Scott did not act as some literary people do—cut up his friend in a review. He pointed out the beauties of the poem, in order to invite purchasers and readers. Yet his private opinion to his friend George Ellis was this:—

Mr. Scott to Mr. G. Ellis.

“I have run up an attempt on the ‘Curse of Kehama’ for the Quarterly: a strange thing it is—the ‘Curse’ I mean —and the critique is not, as the blackguards say, worth a damn; but what I could I did, which was to throw as much weight as possible upon the beautiful passages, of which there are many, and to slur over its absurdities, of which there are not a few. It is infinite pity for Southey, with genius almost to exuberance, so much learning and real good feeling of poetry, that, with the true obstinacy of a foolish papa, he will be most attached to the defects of his poetical offspring. This said ‘Kehama’ affords cruel openings to the quizzers, and I suppose will get it roundly in the Edinburgh Review. I could have made a very different hand of it indeed, had the order of the day been pour déchirer.”

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, Dec. 3rd, 1810. My dear Sir,

I have received your packet with Cromek’s additional sweepings. In his Nithesdale, &c., Sketches he has, I think, had the assistance of a Mr. Mounsey Cunningham who used to correspond with Mr. Constable’s ‘Scottish Magazine’ under the signature J. M. C. I wish you would learn how this stands, for he is a man of some genius, and I would like to treat him civilly, whereas Cromek is a perfect brain-sucker, living upon the labours of others. I have just got ‘Kehama,’ and I hope to have it ready for the Review, so I wish you would keep a corner. I shall be puzzled to do justice to the Review in noticing its great blemishes, and to the author in pointing out its numerous brilliancies, but I must do the best I can. I had Weber’s Romances in hand, but I have laid them aside for this more pressing and more interesting matter.

I beg you will keep my remittances till the end of the year, and shall write so to Mr. Gifford. It is sometimes convenient to have credit for a few guineas in London. Believe me that as I have not had any cause whatever, so I have not had the least intention to slacken our correspondence, but the dulness of the literary world, at least in those articles of lighter calibre in which I deal, gave me but little to say.

I remain, dear Sir, Yours very truly, Walter Scott .

It was a good thing for Southey that he could always depend upon his contributions to the Quarterly for his daily maintenance, for he could not at all rely upon the income from his poetry.

The failure of the Edinburgh Annual Register, published by Ballantyne, led to a diminution of Southey’s income amounting to about £400 a year. He was thus led to write more and more for the Quarterly. His reputation, as well as his income, rose higher from his writings there than from any of his other works. In April 1812 he wrote to his friend Mr. Wynn:—

Mr. Southey to Mr. Wynn.

“By God’s blessing I may yet live to make all necessary provision myself. My means are now improving every year. I am up the hill of difficulty, and shall very soon get rid of the burthen which has impeded me in the ascent. I have some arrangements with Murray, which are likely to prove more profitable than any former speculations . . . Hitherto I have been highly favoured. A healthy body, an active mind, and a cheerful heart, are the three best boons Nature can bestow, and, God be praised, no man ever enjoyed these more perfectly.”

CHAPTER IX. MURRAY AND GIFFORD—BALLANTYNE AND CONSTABLE—PROSPERITY OF THE ‘QUARTERLY.’

From this time, forward the best understanding prevailed between Mr. Murray and the editor of the Quarterly. Their intercourse was continuous; and as they knew each other better they esteemed each other the more. They became fast and intimate friends; holding nothing back from each other, but taking counsel on all matters relating not only to articles for the Quarterly, but to new manuscripts offered to Mr. Murray for publication.

On Murray communicating the troubles and vexations attendant upon his increasing business correspondence, and his anxiety about the Review, to his friend and editor, Gifford wrote as follows:

“It is only by putting off trifles that they become onerous. Who is it that says ‘The wise and prudent conquer difficulties By daring to attempt them.’ It is the same with business difficulties. Meet them in the face and half the trouble is past.”

The Quarterly went on improving, and gradually increased in circulation. Though regular in the irregularity of its publication, the subscribers seem to have become accustomed to the delay, and when it did make its appearance it was read with eagerness and avidity. The interest and variety of its contents and the skill of the editor in the arrangement of his materials, made up for many shortcomings.

Murray and Gifford were in constant communication as to the articles which were about to appear. With respect to the MS. which had been sent by Mr. Pillans* to Mr. Murray for insertion in No. 10, Gifford wrote the following judicious letter:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

May 17th, 1811. Dear Murray,

I have seldom been more pleased and vexed at a time than with the perusal of the enclosed MS. It has wit, it has ingenuity, but both are absolutely lost in a negligence of composition which mortifies me. Why will your young friend fling away talent which might so honourably distinguish him? He might, if he chose, be the ornament of our Review, instead of creating in one mingled regret and admiration. It is utterly impossible to insert such a composition as the present; there are expressions which would not be borne; and if, as you say, it will be sent to Jeffrey’s if I do not admit it, however I may grieve, I must submit to the alternative. Articles of pure humour should be written with extraordinary attention. A vulgar laugh is detestable. I never saw much merit in writing rapidly. You will believe me when I tell you that I have been present at the production of more genuine wit and humour than almost any person of my time, and that it was revised and polished and arranged with a scrupulous care which overlooked nothing. I have not often seen fairer promises of excellence in this department than in your correspondent; but I tell you frankly that they will all be blighted and perish prematurely unless sedulously cultivated. It is a poor ambition to raise a casual laugh in the unreflecting.

I had conceived very high hopes from the paper on Miss Seward; I am justified by the present article; but are not

* See ante, p. 123.

these hopes to be realised by care, by study, by correction? To lose an assistant capable of such powerful aid, would indeed mortify me very greatly; and I could wish you to insinuate in the gentlest manner that what is hastily written should, on that very account, be more anxiously revised; and that no permanent reputation can be founded on thoughts thrown out at random, how ever brilliant, unless clothed in appropriate terms.

If you thought this young gentleman could be prevailed upon to look again at what he has written, and make such alterations as even he must now judge proper, I shall be really happy to avail myself of his extraordinary talents. He must see that it cannot appear in the Quarterly in its present form. Let me hear from you on this subject again.

I am ever, dear Sir, yours, Wm. Gifford.

The article did not appear in the Quarterly and Pillans afterwards became a contributor to the Edinburgh Review. New contributors, however, were constantly making their appearance. In 1811 Mr. Macvey Napier (afterwards editor of the Edinburgh ), while attending the Moral Philosophy Class in the Edinburgh University, sent to the editor of the Quarterly a review of Stewart’s ‘Philosophical Essays.’ Mr. Gifford was greatly pleased with the contribution. “It seems a manly article,” he wrote to Murray, “and as smart as it should be.” In his letter (25th of August, 1811) to Napier, Gifford complimented him on the article, and thanked him most cordially, adding:—

“I have been nearly a week returned from Ryde. I am an aquatic animal, and take to a boat whenever I can. The weather did not favour me much; but upon the whole I find myself improved by the expedition. I must, however, guard against any mistake. Health is with me merely a relative term; for since the hour when I was born I never enjoyed, as far as I can recollect, what you call health for a single day. However, as I have not much pain I do not find any occasion to complain.”

On the 26th of November following he wrote to Mr. Murray:—

“Your letter found me very ill with a swelling in my thigh from an old blow, and unable to stir. In three or four days I hope to be better.”

After discussing the articles which were about to appear in the next Review, he concluded: “I write in pain and must break off.” In the following month Mr. Murray, no doubt in consideration of the start which his Review had made, sent him a present of £500. “I thank you,” he answered (Dec. 6th), “very sincerely for your magnificent present; but £500 is a vast sum. However, you know your own business.”

Yet Mr. Murray was by no means abounding in wealth. We find his clerk writing to Dr. Strahan of Enfield pressing him for payment of his account, because, he said, “Mr. Murray is so very poor at this time.” Then there were those overdrawn bills from Edinburgh to be met. Ballantyne and Constable were both tugging at him for accommodation at the same time.

John Murray to Ballantyne & Co.

December 5th, 1812. Gentlemen,

It is not very generous to make me take up a bill for which I have so recently remitted you the means—at a time, too, when you know that my recent purchase * must have swallowed up all my resources. I shall, however,

* He had purchased the stock of Mr. Miller, of Albemarle Street, in May 1812.

take up the bill; and in order to make matters still more comfortable to you (as you say you will not be in cash till after Christmas), I herewith return you your bills due this month and in January, and I have drawn for them, adding the £150 (your blank acceptance which I also enclose), with interest at two and three months—which bills you will make payable in Edinburgh and thus close the transaction. There is a balance of our old account due to me by your own statement, which you can deduct from the ‘Voyages Imaginaires;’ and there is the freight also of Black’s ‘Life of Tasso,’ which I paid, to be deducted also. I am sorry to say that I am under the necessity of resigning my twelfth share in the ‘Edinburgh Annual Register;’ for after making every effort to serve the book, I can be of no further use; and therefore you will not consider me as having any concern with the future publication of that work. I will thank you to give me a list of any books which you can send me to balance the exchange of the copies of the Register, for which I had received ‘Brewster’s Astronomy’ in part.

I am, &c., yours, J. M.

The business arrangements with Constable and Co. which, save for the short interruption which has already been related, had extended over many years, were now about to come to an end.

John Murray to Mr. Constable. Albemarle St., October 27th, 1812.

“I do not see any existing reason why we, who have so long been so very intimate, should now be placed in a situation of negative hostility. I am sure that we are well calculated to render to each other great services; you are the best judge whether your interests were ever before so well attended to as by me. . . . The great connexion which I have for the last two years been maturing in Fleet Street I am now going to bring into action here; and it is not with any view to, or with any reliance upon, what Miller has done, but upon what I know I can do in such a situation, that I had long made up my mind to move. It is no sudden thing, but one long matured; and it is only from the accident of Miller’s moving that I have taken his house; so that the notions which, I am told, you entertain respecting my plans are totally outside the ideas upon which it was formed . . . I repeat, it is in my power to do you many services; and, certainly, I have bought very largely of you, and you never of me; and you know very well that I will serve you heartily if I can deal with you confidentially.”

A truce was, for a time, made between the firms, but it proved hollow. Communications took place between them until the following May, after which they ceased to have further intercourse in matters of business. It appears that the house of Constable brought out Douglas’s ‘Peerage and Baronetage,’ and offered a share of the publication to Murray. They offered shares also to two other London publishers; and they introduced another London firm, whose name was inserted on the title-page. Mr. Murray refused to entertain the matter further—“being contrary to the terms proposed to me.” The never-ending imposition of accommodation bills sent for acceptance had now reached a point beyond endurance, having regard to Murray’s credit. The last letter from Murray to Constable and Co., was as follows:—

John Murray to Constable & Co.

April 30th, 1813. Gentlemen,

I did not answer the letter to which the enclosed alludes, because its impropriety in all respects rendered it impossible for me to do so without involving myself in a personal dispute, which it is my anxious resolution to avoid: and because my determination was fully taken to abide by what I told you in my former letter, to which alone I can or could have referred you. You made an express proposition to me, to which, as you have deviated from it, it is not my intention to accede. The books may remain with me upon sale or return, until you please to order them elsewhere; and in the meantime I shall continue to avail myself of every opportunity to sell them. I return, therefore, an account and bills, with which I have nothing to do, and desire to have a regular invoice.

I am, gentlemen, yours truly, J. Murray .

Constable and Co. fired off a final shot on the 28th of May following, and the correspondence and business between the firms then terminated.

No. 12 of the Quarterly appeared in December 1811. It contained papers by Southey, Barrow, Canning, Croker, and others. When Mr. Murray asked Southey to supply the review of James Montgomery’s Poems, Southey replied as follows:—

Mr. Southey to John Murray.

“When application was made to me, some years ago, to bear a part in the Edinburgh Review, I refused, upon the ground, among others, of the cruel manner of criticism which Jeffrey had adopted; and the case which I specified as peculiarly cruel and unjust was that of Montgomery’s. I am very glad of the opportunity of doing justice to one whom I consider undoubtedly a man of genius. We have no bookseller in this place” (Keswick), added Southey, “except an old huckstering grocer, who gets down the magazines three weeks after date, and whose natural sourness, instead of being sweetened by his dealings in sugar, is hyperoxygenated by Methodism.”

Southey was still very angry with Gifford for the curtailment of his articles before publication. And yet he knew, well enough, the necessity of subordination in a review. When one, two, or three articles were by the same writer, Gifford had to bring them within bounds, to make room for his other contributors. Southey wrote so smoothly, so easily, so wordily, that he might often have filled an entire review. Yet Gifford was generous to Southey, and often wrote to Murray of the excellence of his articles, though Southey did not know it. In one of his letters he said,—

“It is excellent. A little allowance must be made for the writer, but, on the whole, there is little that any one would wish away.”

The same number of the Review (No. 12) contained an article on Java, by Mr. Barrow, the proofs of which had been seen by Mr. Yorke and Mr. Perceval, and approved. But perhaps the most interesting article in the number was that by Canning and Ellis, on Trotter’s ‘Life of Fox.’ Gifford writes to Murray about this article:—

“I have not seen Canning yet, but he is undoubtedly at work by this time. Pray take care that no one gets a sight of the slips. It will be a delightful article, but say not a word till it comes out.”

A pamphlet had been published by W. S. Landor, dedicated to the President of the United States, entitled, “Remarks upon Memoirs of Mr. Fox lately published.” Gifford was furious about it. He wrote to Murray:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“I never read so rascally a thing as the Dedication. It is almost too bad for the Eatons and other publishers of mad democratic books. In the pamphlet itself there are many clever bits, but there is no taste and little judgment. His attacks on private men are very bad. Those on Mr. C. are too stupid to do much harm, or, indeed, any. The Dedication is the most abject piece of business that I ever read. It shows Landor to have a most rancorous and malicious heart. Nothing but a rooted hatred of his country could have made him dedicate his Jacobinical book to the most contemptible wretch that ever crept into authority, and whose only recommendation to him is his implacable enmity to his country. I think you might write to Southey; but I would not, on any account, have you publish such a scoundrel address.”

The only entire article ever contributed to the Review by Gifford himself was that which he wrote, in conjunction with Barron Field, on Ford’s ‘Dramatic Works.’ It was an able paper, but it contained a passage, the publication of which occasioned Gifford the deepest regret. Towards the conclusion of the article these words occurred: The Editor “has polluted his pages with the blasphemies of a poor maniac, who, it seems, once published some detached scenes of the ‘Broken Heart’” This referred to Charles Lamb, who likened the “transcendent scene [of the Spartan boy and Calantha] in imagination to Calvary and the Cross.” Now Gifford had never heard of the personal history of Lamb, nor of the occasional fits of lunacy to which he and his sister Mary were subject; and when the paragraph was brought to his notice by Southey, through Murray, it caused him unspeakable distress. He at once wrote to Southey* the following letter:—

Mr. W. Gifford to Mr. Southey.

February 13th, 1812 My dear Sir,

I break off here to say that I have this moment received your last letter to Murray. It has grieved and shocked me

* When the subject of a memoir of Charles Lamb by Serjeant Talfourd was under consideration, Southey wrote to a friend: “I wish that I had looked out for Mr. Talfourd the letter which Gifford wrote in reply to one in which I remonstrated with him upon his designation of Lamb as a poor maniac. The words were used in complete ignorance of their peculiar bearings, and I believe nothing in the course of Gifford’s life ever occasioned him so much self-reproach. He was a man with whom I had no literary sympathies; perhaps there was nothing upon which we agreed, except great political questions; but I liked him the better ever after for his conduct on this occasion.”

beyond expression; but, my dear friend, I am innocent so far as the intent goes. I call God to witness that in the whole course of my life I never heard one syllable of Mr. Lamb or his family. I knew not that he ever had a sister, or that he had parents living, or that he or any person connected with him had ever manifested the slightest tendency to insanity. In a word, I declare to you in the most solemn manner that all I ever knew or ever heard of Mr. Lamb was merely his name. Had I been aware of one of the circumstances which you mention, I would have lost my right arm sooner than have written what I have. The truth is, that I was shocked at seeing him compare the sufferings and death of a person who just continues to dance after the death of his lover is announced (for this is all his merit) to the pangs of Mount Calvary; and not choosing to attribute it to folly, because I reserved that charge for Weber, I unhappily in the present case ascribed it to madness, for which I pray God to forgive me, since the blow has fallen heavily when I really thought it would not be felt. I considered Lamb as a thoughtless scribbler, who, in circumstances of ease, amused himself by writing on any subject. Why I thought so, I cannot tell, but it was the opinion I formed to myself, for I now regret to say I never made any inquiry upon the subject; nor by any accident in the whole course of my life did I hear him mentioned beyond the name.

I remain, my dear Sir, Yours most sincerely, W. Gifford .

No. 13 of the Quarterly contained an article on Lay Baptism by a new contributor—who was destined to attain great renown as a controversialist—the Rev. H. Phillpotts, afterwards Bishop of Exeter. It will be observed that Mr. Barrow, who had now become a most important and essential contributor to the Review, was the author of no fewer than three articles in this number. Croker had also become most important and useful; Gifford spoke of him to Murray as “really a treasure to us.” Southey, as active as ever, wrote to Murray:—

Mr. Southey to John Murray. May 19th, 1812.

“I have laid the first stone of an article for our next number upon the French Revolution—a subject most mournfully well-timed. The direful state of the populace, which the late deplorable event has disclosed—though it may have surprised me less than it has done most people—has alarmed me deeply, because I have long distinctly seen the causes which were at work to produce it. The counteracting causes on which my hopes were founded have not kept pace with them. At this moment, nothing but the army preserves us from the most dreadful of all calamities, an insurrection of the poor against the rich, and how long the army may be depended upon is a question which I scarcely dare ask myself. Of this I feel certain, that unless the most vigorous measures be speedily taken against those who by their speeches and writings are instigating the mob to rebellion, it will be too late; and they who may survive the coming horrors will see that the abuse of liberty is uniformly and inevitably punished with the loss of liberty. Its danger I will show in the Quarterly, but I believe the best means of stirring up the public mind is through the newspapers.”

Southey’s article appeared in No. 14, together with an article by Lord Dudley (J. W. Ward) on Reform. Croker contributed three articles, with respect to one of which he wrote to Murray, “I send you a hasty sketch, or rather a vile daub, of a portrait of Miss Edgeworth.” These were written before the assassination of Mr. Perceval by the lunatic Bellingham, in the lobby of the House of Commons on the 11th of May, 1812. This event completely unmanned him, and he was unable to write for some time.

While the article No. 4 was still under consideration, Gifford wrote to Murray as follows, showing the influence over Gifford of his friend Dr. Ireland, which Murray considered baneful:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“Whatever be the case, Eveleigh cannot be left out this time without displeasing Dr. Ireland, who fully expects it. You have bad advisers, and the consequence is that many things are postponed which would have done well, and now only seem to create enemies. We ought to distrust our own judgments. How many things have you printed with reluctance that turned out favourites? Topics of general interest are certainly best; but a review cannot be filled with them—at least, I know not how they can be procured. I know the difficulties of supporting a review of this kind, and that nothing is to be got by it; but this could be no secret to you, and you, no more than me, had any reason to look for more help than we have found. I know no good writers, and what good writer did you bring to the undertaking? All was chance, and that was hardly enough to trust to. However, we are embarked, and it must be your care to hazard nothing. Cut in time, and no great harm can be done.”

A little later, Gifford says:—

“If you mean by being no Calvinist, that Daly is not to come in, I do not see how this can be—as we shall have an article from Mr. C. in the No. following. Nor can I frame excuses for your omissions. This business begins to get too heavy for me, and I must soon have done, I fear.”

Gifford, however, recovered his spirits, and went on conducting the Quarterly for many years longer, until eventually it became a complete success. The numbers appeared more regularly, the articles improved, and the circulation increased.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. Ryde, Aug. 11th, 1812.

“I got down better than I expected, and arrived here on Wednesday to breakfast, cold and hungry, but not wet. I have lived in a state of positive idleness, and gone on the water every hour that the weather, which is miserable, would let me; and already I think myself much benefited. In a day or two I shall sit down to business, but my head, is hardly yet settled, and this letter is merely to tell you that I am quite well, and pleased with my situation. Nancy [the housekeeper] is much better, and begs me to thank you for your kind inquiry.”

We have been thus particular in describing the launching and establishing of the Quarterly, as it was the most important enterprise of Mr. Murray’s life, to which he gave the principal portion of his time, and in the success of which he took the greatest pride. A few years later, in 1817, Southey wrote to his friend Bedford:—

“Murray offers me a thousand guineas for my intended poem in blank verse, and begs it may not be a line longer than ‘Thomson’s Seasons!’ I rather think the poem will be a post obit, and in that case, twice that sum, at least, may be demanded for it. What his real feelings may be towards me, I cannot tell; but he is a happy fellow, living in the light of his own glory. The Review is the greatest of all works, and it is all his own creation; he prints 10,000, and fifty times ten thousand read its contents, in the East and in the West. Joy be with him and his journal!”

CHAPTER X. LORD BYRON’S WORKS, 1811 TO 1814.

The origin of Mr. Murray’s connection with Lord Byron was as follows. Lord Byron had made Mr. Dallas a present of the MS. of the first two cantos of ‘Childe Harold,’ and allowed him to make arrangements for their publication. Mr. Dallas’s first intention was to offer them to the publisher of ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers,’ but Cawthorn did not rank sufficiently high among his brethren of the trade. He was precluded from offering them to Longman and Co. because of their refusal to publish the Satire. He then went to Mr. Miller, of Albemarle Street, and left the manuscript with him, “enjoining the strictest secrecy as to the author.” After a few days’ consideration Miller declined to publish the poem, principally because of the sceptical stanzas which it contained, and also because of its denunciation as a “plunderer” of his friend and patron the Earl of Elgin, who was mentioned by name in the original manuscript of the poem.

After hearing from Dallas that Miller had declined to publish ‘Childe Harold,’ Lord Byron wrote to him from Reddish’s Hotel:

Lord Byron to Mr. Miller.

July 30th, 1811. Sir,

I am perfectly aware of the justice of your remarks, and am convinced that if ever the poem is published the same objections will be made in much stronger terms. But, as it was intended to be a poem on Ariosto’s plan, that is to say on no plan at all, and, as is usual in similar cases, having a predilection for the worst passages, I shall retain those parts, though I cannot venture to defend them. Under these circumstances I regret that you decline the publication, on my own account, as I think the book would have done better in your hands; the pecuniary part, you know, I have nothing to do with . . . But I can perfectly conceive, and indeed approve your reasons, and assure you my sensations are not Archiepiscopal enough as yet to regret the rejection of my Homilies.

I am, Sir, your very obedient, humble servant, Byron .

“Next to these publishers,” proceeds Dallas, “I wished to oblige Mr. Murray, who had then a shop opposite St. Dunstan’s Church, in Fleet Street. Both he and his father before him had published for myself. He had expressed to me his regret that I did not carry him the ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.’ But this was after its success; I think he would have refused it in its embryo state. After Lord Byron’s arrival I had met him, and he said he wished I would obtain some work of his Lordship’s for him. I now had it in my power, and I put ‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage’ into his hands, telling him that Lord Byron had made me a present of it, and that I expected he would make a very liberal arrangement with me for it.

“He took some days to consider, during which time he consulted his literary advisers, among whom, no doubt, was Mr. Gifford, who was Editor of the Quarterly Review. That Mr. Gifford gave a favourable Opinion I afterwards learned from Mr. Murray himself; but the objections I have stated stared him in the face, and he was kept in suspense between the desire of possessing a work of Lord Byron’s and the fear of an unsuccessful speculation. We came to this conclusion: that he should print, at his expense, a handsome quarto edition, the profits of which I should share equally with him, and that the agreement for the copyright should depend upon the success of this edition. When I told this to Lord Byron he was highly pleased, but still doubted the copyright being worth my acceptance, promising, however, if the poem went through the edition, to give me other poems to annex to ‘Childe Harold.’”

That Mr. Murray was quick in recognizing the just value of poetical works and the merits of Lord Byron’s poem is evident from the fact that at the very time that Miller declined to publish ‘Childe Harold,’ he accepted a poem by Rosa Matilda (Temple) which Murray had refused to publish, and that it was sold the year after as waste paper, whilst Murray jumped at the offer of publishing Lord Byron’s poem, and did not hesitate to purchase the copyright for a large price. Mr. Murray had long desired to make Lord Byron’s acquaintance, and now that Mr. Dallas had arranged with him for the publication of the first two cantos of ‘Childe Harold,’ he had many opportunities of seeing Byron at his place of business. The first time that he saw him was when he called one day with Mr. Hobhouse in Fleet Street. He afterwards looked in from time to time, while the sheets were passing through the press, fresh from the fencing rooms of Angelo and Jackson, and used to amuse himself by renewing his practice of “Carte et Tierce,” with his walking-cane directed against the book-shelves, while Murray was reading passages from the poem, with occasional ejaculations of admiration; on which Byron would say, “You think that a good idea, do you, Murray?” Then he would fence and lunge with his walking stick at some special book which he had picked out on the shelves before him. As Murray afterwards said, “I was often very glad to get rid of him!”

A correspondence took place with regard to certain omissions, alterations, and improvements which were strongly urged both by Mr. Dallas and the publisher. Mr. Murray wrote as follows:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

September 4th, 1811. My Lord,

An absence of some days, passed in the country, has prevented me from writing earlier, in answer to your obliging letters.* I have now, however, the pleasure of sending you, under a separate cover, the first proof sheets of your poem; which is so good as to be entitled to all your care in rendering it perfect. Besides its general merits, there are parts which, I am tempted to believe, far excel anything that you have hitherto published; and it were therefore grievous indeed if you do not condescend to bestow upon it all the improvements of which your mind is so capable. Every correction already made is valuable, and this circumstance renders me more confident in soliciting your further attention. There are some expressions concerning Spain and Portugal which, however just at the time they were conceived, yet, as they do not harmonise with the now prevalent feeling, I am persuaded would so greatly interfere with the popularity which the poem is, in other respects, certainly calculated to excite, that, in compassion to your publisher, who does not presume to reason upon the subject, otherwise than as a mere matter of business, I hope your goodness will induce you to remove them; and with them perhaps some religious sentiments which may deprive me of some customers amongst the Orthodox. Could I flatter myself that these suggestions were not obtrusive, I would hazard another,—that you would add the two promised cantos, and complete the poem. It were cruel indeed not to perfect a work which contains so much that is excellent Your fame, my Lord, demands it. You are raising a monument that will outlive your present feelings; and it should therefore be constructed in such a manner as to excite no other association than that of respect and admiration for your character and genius. I trust that you will pardon the warmth of this address, when I assure you that it arises, in the greatest degree, from a sincere regard for your best reputation; with, however, some view to that

* These letters are given in Moore’s ‘Life and Letters of Lord Byron.’

portion of it which must attend the publisher of so beautiful a poem as you are capable of rendering in the ‘Romaunt of Childe Harold.’”

In compliance with the suggestions of the publisher, Byron altered and improved the stanzas relating to Elgin and Wellington. With respect to the religious, or anti-religious sentiments, Byron wrote to Murray: “As for the ‘orthodox,’ let us hope they will buy on purpose to abuse—you will forgive the one if they will do the other.” Yet he did alter Stanza VIII., and inserted what Moore calls a “magnificent stanza,” in place of one that was churlish and sneering, and in all respects very much inferior.

Byron then proceeded to another point. “Tell me fairly, did you show the MS. to some of your corps?” “I will have no traps for applause,” he wrote to Mr. Murray, at the same time forbidding him to show the manuscript of ‘Childe Harold’ to his Aristarchus, Mr. Gifford, though he had no objection to letting it be seen by any one else. But it was too late. Mr. Gifford had already seen the manuscript, and pronounced a favourable opinion as to its great poetic merits. Byron was not satisfied with this assurance, and seemed, in his next letter, to be very angry. He could not bear to have it thought that he was endeavouring to ensure a favourable review of his work in the Quarterly. To Mr. Dallas he wrote (Sept. 23rd, 1811):—

“I will be angry with Murray. It was a book-selling, back-shop, Paternoster Row, paltry proceeding; and if the experiment had turned out as it deserved, I would have raised all Fleet Street, and borrowed the giant’s staff from St Dunstan’s Church, to immolate the betrayer of trust. I have written to him as he was never written to before by an author, I’ll be sworn; and I hope you will amplify my wrath, till it has an effect upon him.”

Byron at first objected to allow the new poem to be published with his name, thinking that this would bring down upon him the enmity of his critics in the North, as well as the venom of the southern scribblers, whom he had enraged by his Satire. At last, on Mr. Murray’s strong representation, he consented to allow his name to be published on the title-page as the author. Even to the last, however, his doubts were great as to the probable success of the poem; and he more than once talked of suppressing it.

In Oct. 1811, Lord Byron wrote from Newstead Abbey to his friend Mr. Hodgson:—*

“‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage’ must wait till Murray’s is finished. He is making a tour in Middlesex, and is to return soon, when high matter may be expected. He wants to have it in quarto, which is a cursed unsaleable size; but it is pestilent long, and one must obey one’s publisher.”

The whole of the sheets were printed off in the following month of January; and the work was published on the 1st of March, 1812. Of the first edition only 500 copies, demy quarto, were printed.

It is unnecessary to say with what applause the book was received. The impression it produced was as instantaneous as it proved to be lasting. Byron himself briefly described the result of the publication in his memoranda: “I awoke one morning and found myself famous.” The publisher had already taken pains to spread abroad the merits of the poem. Many of his friends had re-echoed its praises. The attention of the public was fixed upon the

* The Rev. Francis Hodgson was then residing at Cambridge as Fellow and Tutor of King’s College. He formed an intimate friendship with Byron, who communicated with him freely as to his poetical as well as his religious difficulties. Hodgson afterwards became Provost of Eton.

work; and in three days after its appearance the whole edition was disposed of. When Mr. Dallas went to see Lord Byron at his house in St. James’s Street, he found him loaded with letters from critics, poets, and authors, all lavish of their raptures. A handsome new edition, in octavo, was proposed, to which his Lordship agreed.

Mr. Dallas in his ‘Memoir,’ proceeds:—

“After speaking to Lord Byron of the sale, and settling the new edition, I said ‘How can I possibly think of this rapid sale, and the profits likely to ensue, without recollecting’—‘What?’ interposed Byron. ‘Think,’ continued Dallas, ‘what a sum your work may produce.’ ‘I shall be rejoiced,’ said Byron, ‘and wish it doubled and trebled; but do not talk to me of money. I never will receive money for my writings.’ ‘I ought not to differ in an opinion which puts hundreds into my purse, but others’—He put out his hand to me, shook mine, and turned the conversation.”

Eventually Mr. Murray consented to give Mr. Dallas £600 for the copyright of the poem; although Mr. Gifford and others were of opinion that it might prove a bad bargain at that price. There was, however, one exception, namely Mr. Rogers, who told Mr. Murray not to be disheartened, for he might rely upon its turning out the most fortunate purchase he had ever made; and so it proved. Three thousand copies of the second and third editions of the poem in octavo were printed; and these went off in rapid succession.

While ‘Childe Harold’ was passing through the press, Mr. Murray again wrote:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

June 12th, 1812. My Lord,

I am truly anxious to know of your personal safety during this weather of turbulence and disaster. Only three mails had arrived at 3 o’clock to-day. I called upon Mr. Gifford to-day, and he expresses himself quite delighted with the annexed Poems, more particularly with the ‘Song from the Portuguese,’ and the ‘Stanzas to a Lady Weeping.’ The latter, however, he thinks you ought to slip quietly amongst the Poems in ‘Childe Harold’; for the present work is to be read by women, and this would disturb the poetical feeling. Besides, as it has been already published in a newspaper, it does not accord with your character to appear to think too much of it. If you allow me, I would transfer it to ‘Childe Harold,’ and insert the ‘Impromptu’ in its place.

Mr. Dallas has sent his proofs with about 200 alterations of the pointings merely. Now, as Gifford made nearly as many, I could not venture so direct an affront upon him as to overturn all that his care has taken. Mr. Moore returned his proof to me without a correction. I hope to go to press immediately upon receipt of your Lordship’s letter. Mr. Gifford is really delighted.

I remain, in haste, most faithfully, Your Lordship’s Servant, John Murray .

On the appearance of ‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,’ Lord Byron became an object of interest in the fashionable world of London. His poem was the subject of conversation everywhere, and many literary, noble, and royal personages desired to make his acquaintance. In the month of June he was invited to a party at Miss Johnson’s, at which His Royal Highness the Prince Regent was present. As Lord Byron had not yet been to Court, it was not considered etiquette that he should appear before His Royal Highness. He accordingly retired to another room. But on the Prince being informed that Lord Byron was in the house, he expressed a desire to see him.

Lord Byron was sent for; he was introduced to the Prince, and was so much pleased with his fascinating manner and entertaining conversation, that he declared it almost made him a courtier. The Prince’s eulogistic references to Scott in the course of the interview reached the ears of Mr. Murray, who seized this opportunity to endeavour to heal the breach which had been caused between Scott and Byron by the unguarded satire in ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers,’ and wrote thus:—

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

June 27th, 1812. Dear Sir,

I cannot refrain, notwithstanding my fears of intrusion, from mentioning to you a conversation which Lord Byron had with H.R.H. the Prince Regent, and of which you formed the leading subject. He was at an evening party at Miss Johnson’s this week, when the Prince, hearing that Lord Byron was present, expressed a desire to be introduced to him; and for more than half an hour they conversed on poetry and poets, with which the Prince displayed an intimacy and critical taste which at once surprised and delighted Lord Byron. But the Prince’s great delight was Walter Scott, whose name and writings he dwelt upon and recurred to incessantly. He preferred him far beyond any other poet of the time, repeated several passages with fervour, and criticized them faithfully. He spoke chiefly of the ‘Lay of the Last Minstrel,’ which he expressed himself as admiring most of the three poems. He quoted Homer, and even some of the obscurer Greek poets, and appeared, as Lord Byron supposes, to have read more poetry than any prince in Europe. He paid, of course, many compliments to Lord Byron, but the greatest was “that he ought to be offended with Lord B., for that he had thought it impossible for any poet to equal Walter Scott, and that he had made him find himself mistaken.” Lord Byron called upon me, merely to let off the raptures of the Prince respecting you, thinking, as he said, that if I were likely to have occasion to write to you, it might not be ungrateful for you to hear of his praises. It is remarkable that the Prince never mentioned Campbell. I inquired particularly about this, as I was anxious to ascertain the Prince’s opinion of both, as Lord Byron is rather partial to Campbell. The Prince is really worthy of a dedication, which, for many reasons, he would receive not only graciously, but gratefully. I sent you, some time ago, the ‘Calamities of Authors,’ a work by D’Israeli. It is much liked here. If the book suit your taste, and if the office accord with your leisure, I hope you may be tempted to favour me with a Review of it.* I trust that your kindness may excuse the tittle-tattle which has occasioned this note; but I could not persuade myself that it would be uninteresting to you to know that you are equally esteemed by the Prince as I know you to be by the Princess.

Yours very faithfully, John Murray .

In reply Scott wrote to Mr. Murray as follows, enclosing a letter to Lord Byron, which has already been published in the lives of both authors:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, July 2nd, 1812. My dear Sir,

I have been very silent, partly through pressure of business and partly from idleness and procrastination, but it would be very ungracious to delay returning my thanks for your kindness in transmitting the very flattering particulars of the Prince Regent’s conversation with Lord Byron. I trouble you with a few lines to his Lordship expressive of my thanks for his very handsome and gratifying communication, and I hope he will not consider it as intrusive in a veteran author to pay my debt of gratitude for the high pleasure I have received from the perusal of ‘Childe Harold,’ which is certainly the most original poem which we have had this many a day . . . . .

Your obliged, humble Servant, Walter Scott .

* Scott’s acknowledgment of this will be found in the preceding chapter.

This episode led to the opening of an agreeable correspondence between Scott and Byron, which resulted in a lasting friendship between the two poets. On September 5, 1812, Lord Byron wrote to Mr. Murray requesting him to send several despatches and a number of the Edinburgh Review. “Send me ‘Rokeby,’” he said. “Who the deuce is he? . . . Also send me ‘Adair on Diet and Regimen,’ just re-published by Ridgway.” Mr. Murray’s answer was as follows:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

September 7th, 1812. My Lord,

By the mail I have sent two letters, two parcels, and two Reviews. Mr. Ridgway assures me that it is impossible to complete a copy of the new edition of ‘Adair on Diet’ before to-morrow or the day following.

The tardy engraver promises the portrait in ten days, and I shall do myself the pleasure of sending a copy, for your Lordship’s remarks, before it is prefixed to the poem, the demand for which proceeds with undiminished vigour. I have now sold, within a few copies, 4500 in less than six months, a sale so unprecedented, except in one instance, that you should cease to reproach the public and the publisher for “tardy editions.” You will readily believe that I am delighted to find you thinking of a new poem, for which I should be proud to give a thousand guineas, and I should ever gratefully remember the fame it would cast over my new establishment, upon which I enter at the close of the present month.

Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have had occasion to visit Lucien Bonaparte, to make arrangements for his poem, which, with the translation, will form two volumes in quarto, and which I am to publish immediately if his brother will permit its circulation on the Continent. Lucien is commanding and interesting in his person and address.

Walter Scott has, I am informed by his intimate friend Mr. Heber, retained very closely the subject of his new poem, which is, perhaps, not impolitic. The name of ‘Rokeby’ is that of his friend Mr. Morritt’s estate in Yorkshire, to whom it is no doubt intended as a compliment. The poem, as the publisher informs me, will not be published before Christmas.

Indeed, my Lord, I hope that you will cut the tugging strings of care, and allow your mind to soar into its congenial element of poesy. “From a delirious earth avert thine eyes And dry thy fruitless tears, and seek fictitious skies.” D’Israeli . You will easily conceive my contempt for anything in the Anti-Jacobin Review, when I venture to send you their vituperative criticism without previous notice. I am ashamed to see how long I may have trespassed upon your patience.

I am ever, &c., John Murray .

Lord Byron did not like the engraved portrait of himself, to which he had a “very strong objection,” and he requested that the plate might be destroyed, which was done accordingly.

In October 1812 Lord Byron wrote to Mr. Murray from Cheltenham:—“I have a poem on ‘Waltzing’ for you, of which I make you a present; but it must be anonymous. It is in the old style of ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.’” On Oct. 22nd Murray replied:—“I am distracted at this time between two houses, and am forced to write in haste. I had a sale, to the Booksellers, on Tuesday, when I disposed of no less than 878 copies of the fifth edition of ‘Childe Harold,’ from which you will judge of the belief of the booksellers in its continuing success. I am anxious to be favoured with the ‘Waltzing’.” A few days later, Lord Byron added—“You go on boldly; but have a care of glutting the public, who have by this time had enough of ‘Childe Harold.’ ‘Waltzing’ shall be prepared. It is rather above two hundred lines, with an introductory letter to the publisher.”

‘The Waltz: an Apostrophic Poem,’ was published anonymously, and against the inclination of Murray, who had a poor opinion of it, in February 1813, but as the poem was not well received by the public, the author was anxious to disavow it. “I hear,” he wrote to Mr. Murray, “that a certain malicious publication on Waltzing is attributed to me. This report, I suppose, you will take care to contradict, as the author, I am sure, will not like-that I should wear his cap and bells.”

Being a member of the Drury Lane Managing Committee, Lord Byron had been requested, with many others, to write a Prologue, to be recited at the opening of the theatre. Nearly a hundred prologues had been offered, but Lord Byron’s was accepted, a preference which induced “all Grub Street” to attack him. It was in reference to this circumstance that Mr. Murray addressed him:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

October, 1812.

I was present during the first recitation of the address, and can assure you that it was received, throughout, with applauding satisfaction. I have inclosed the copy of the address which I had in my hand, and on which I marked, with my pencil—at the time, those parts at which the warmest approbation was loudly expressed. There was not the slightest demonstration or appearance of dissatisfaction at any one point. There were many important variations in Mr. Elliston’s delivery, which was, throughout, exceedingly bad; indeed his acting exhibits nothing but conceit. I was surprised to find your name given up at once to the public, I confess, and the appendage to the address, stating the reward offered for the best copy of verses, appeared to reflect discredit and ridicule in whatever way it was viewed.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

November 4th, 1812.

I had the pleasure of receiving your obliging letter, dated the 23rd October, but was unwilling to intrude an answer upon you until something important should cast up; and the occasion is now furnished by the tremendous ‘Critique upon Lord Byron’s Address,’ which I enclose under this and another cover. You declined writing the address originally, because “you would not contend with all Grub Street;” but you did not suspect, at that time, that success would induce all Grub Street to contend against you; but this is the present state of the case. You will have seen by the Chronicle of yesterday that it is in contemplation to collect and publish, in one volume, the whole of the Rejected Addresses, which would be an excellent subject of fun for an article in the Review, and Mr. Gifford would, I think, join forces with you.

I shall be careful to give you full notice of the new edition of ‘Childe Harold,’ which has been very much assisted in sale by the admiration forced from the ragamuffins who are abusing the Address. I would be delighted if you had a new poem ready for publication about the same time that Walter Scott is expected; but I will sacrifice my right arm (your Lordship’s friendship) rather than publish any poem not equal to ‘Childe Harold’ without a conscriptive command, like that which I lately executed in committing your portrait to the flames; but I had some consolation in seeing it ascend in sparkling brilliancy to Parnassus. Neither Mr. Gifford nor I, I can venture to assure you, upon honour, have any notion who the author of the admirable article on ‘Horne Tooke’ is.

I ever remain, Your Lordship’s faithful Servant, John Murray .

P.S.—I do not mention ‘Waltzing,’ from the hope that it improves geometrically as to the time that it is retained.

The fit of inspiration was now on Lord Byron. In May 1813 appeared ‘The Giaour,’* and in the midst of his corrections of successive editions of it, he wrote in four nights his second Turkish Story ‘Zuleika,’ afterwards known as ‘The Bride of Abydos.’

“The ‘Bride,’” says Byron,“was written in four nights to distract my dreams from . . . Were it not thus, it had never been composed; and had I not done something at that time, I must have gone mad by eating my own heart—bitter diet!” “No one has seen it,” he writes in his Diary, “but Hodgson and Mr. Gifford.” “Hodgson likes it better than ‘The Giaour,’ but nobody else will,—and he never liked the ‘Fragment.’ I am sure, had it not been for Murray, that never would have been published, though the circumstances, which are the groundwork, make it . . . . heigh-ho!”

John Murray to Lord Byron.

September 25th, 1813. My Dear Lord,

Some time ago I mentioned that I had sent the fifth Edition of ‘The Giaour’ to Mr. Gifford. I did not expect him to touch it except for the purpose of sending it to our reviewer, who has totally disappointed us. I called to-day upon Mr. G., and as soon as a gentleman who was present had gone, and he was ready to begin your business, he fell back in his largest armchair, and exclaimed, “Upon my honour, Murray, Lord Byron is a most extraordinary man. The new edition of his poem contains passages of exquisite—extraordinary beauty (I recollect now that he said they astonished him)—equal to anything that I have ever read.

* With respect to the passage in which the lines occur— “Though in Time’s record it was nought, It was eternity in thought,” Lord Byron told Mr. Murray that he took this idea from one of the Arabian tales—that in which the Sultan puts his head into a butt of water, and, though it remains there for only two or three minutes, he imagines that he lives many years during that time. The story had been quoted by Addison in the Spectator.

What is he about? Will he not collect all his force for one immortal work? His subject is an excellent one. We never had descriptions of Eastern manners before. All that has been hitherto attempted was done without actual knowledge.” I told him that Moore was writing an Eastern story. “Moore,” said he, “will do only what has been already done, and he is incapable of writing anything like Lord Byron.” Mr. Gifford spoke too of the vigour of all your additions. Speaking of Scott, he said you did not interfere with each other, but that he had completely settled in his mind your certain superiority or genius of a higher order. I told him how rejoiced I was to hear him speak thus of you, and added that I knew you cherished his letter to you. He again deplored your wanderings from some great object, and regretted that you would not follow his recommendation of producing something worthy of you; for, highly as he thinks of your talents in both poems, and I believe most particularly in the last, still he thinks you have by no means stretched your pinions to the full, and taken the higher flight to which they are equal. I would apologise to you for detailing what superficially appears mere praise; but I am sure you will go deeper into the subject, and see in it my anxiety after your fame alone.

In our next number there will be an able review of the Fifth Edition, though the Edinburgh Review had anticipated our extracts. At Madame de Staël’s yesterday, you were the subject of much conversation, with Sir James Mackintosh and Conversation Sharp. Sir James asked and was astonished at the number of copies sold of ‘The Giaour,’ and a lady (not very young though) took away a copy of ‘The Giaour’ by the talismanic effect of the enclosed card. Do me the kindness to tell me when you propose to return. I am at Home for the remainder of the season, and until the termination of all seasons, and am,

Your faithful Servant, John Murray .

The ‘Bride of Abydos’ appeared at the beginning of December 1813. While it was in the press Mr. Murray sent a copy to Mr. Frere, whose opinion he thus conveyed to the author.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

November, 1813. My Dear Lord,

I am so very anxious to procure the best criticism upon the ‘Bride,’ that I ventured last night to introduce her to the protection of Mr. Frere. He has just returned, quite delighted; he read several passages to Mr. Heber as exquisitely beautiful. He says there is a simplicity running through the whole that reminds him of the ancient ballad. He thinks it equal to anything you have produced. I asked if it was equal to the ‘Giaour;’ he said that the ‘Giaour’ contained perhaps a greater number of splendid passages, but that the mind carries something to rest upon after rising from the ‘Bride of Abydos.’ It is more perfect. He made one or two remarks. He says that such words as Gul and Bulbul, though not unpoetical in themselves, are in bad taste, and ought not to receive the sanction of your Lordship’s example. In the passage, stanza ix. pp. 12-13, which Mr. Frere thought particularly fine, he thinks that the dimness of sight occasioned by abstraction of mind is rendered less complete by defining the fatal stroke as right sharply dealt.

With respect to the business arrangement as to the two poems, Mr. Murray wrote to Lord Byron as follows:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

November 18th, 1813. My Dear Lord,

I am very anxious that our business transactions should occur frequently, and that they should be settled immediately; for short accounts are favourable to long friendships.

I restore ‘The Giaour’ to your Lordship entirely, and for it, the ‘Bride of Abydos,’ and the miscellaneous poems intended to fill up the volume of the small edition, I beg leave to offer you the sum of One Thousand Guineas; and I shall be happy if you perceive that my estimation of your talents in my character of a man of business is not much under my admiration of them as a man.

I do most heartily accept the offer of your portrait, as the most noble mark of friendship with which you could in any way honour me. I do assure you that I am truly proud of being distinguished as your publisher, and that I shall ever continue,

Your Lordship’s faithful Servant. John Murray .

With reference to the foregoing letter we read in Lord Byron’s ‘Diary,’—

“Mr. Murray has offered me one thousand guineas for ‘The Giaour’ and ‘The Bride of Abydos.’ I won’t. It is too much: though I am strongly tempted, merely for the say of it. No bad price for a fortnight’s (a week each) what?—the gods know. It was intended to be called poetry.”

In a letter to Mr. Murray (Nov. 17, 1813), Lord Byron writes,—

“Before I left town for Yorkshire, you said that you were ready and willing to give five hundred guineas for the copyright of ‘The Giaour;’ and my answer was—from which I do not mean to recede—that we would discuss the point at Christmas. The new story may or may not succeed; the probability, under present circumstances, seems to be that it may at least pay its expenses: but even that remains to be proved, and till it is proved one way or the other, we will say nothing about it. Thus, then, be it: I will postpone all arrangement about it, and ‘The Giaour’ also, till Easter, 1814; and you will then, according to your own notions of fairness, make your own offer for the two. At the same time, I do not rate the last, in my own estimation, at half ‘The Giaour;’ and according to your own notions of its worth and its success within the time mentioned, be the addition or deduction to or from whatever sum may be your proposal for the first, which has already had its success.”

The ‘Bride of Abydos’ was received with almost as much applause as the ‘Giaour.’ “Lord Byron,” said Sir James Mackintosh, “is the author of the day; six thousand of his ‘Bride of Abydos’ have been sold within a month.”

‘The Corsair’ was Lord Byron’s next poem, written with great vehemence, literally “struck off at a heat,” at the rate of about two hundred lines a day,—“a circumstance,” says Moore, “that is, perhaps, wholly without a parallel in the history of genius.” ‘The Corsair’ was begun on the 18th, and finished on the 31st of December, 1813.

A sudden impulse induced Lord Byron to present the copyright of this poem also to Mr. Dallas, with the single stipulation that he would offer it for publication to Mr. Murray, who eventually paid Mr. Dallas five hundred guineas for the copyright, and the work was published in February 1814. The following letters will give some idea of the reception it met with.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

February 3rd, 1814. My Lord,

I have been unwilling to write until I had something to say, an occasion to which I do not always restrict myself. I am most happy to tell you that your last poem is—what Mr. Southey’s is called—a Carmen Triumphale. Never, in my recollection, has any work, since the “Letter of Burke to the Duke of Bedford,” excited such a ferment—a ferment which I am happy to say will subside into lasting fame. I sold, on the day of publication,—a thing perfectly unprecedented—10,000 copies; and I suppose thirty people, who were purchasers (strangers), called to tell the people in the shop how much they had been delighted and satisfied. Mr. Moore says it is masterly,—a wonderful performance. Mr. Hammond, Mr. Heber, D’Israeli, every one who comes,—and too many call for me to enumerate—declare their unlimited approbation. Mr. Ward was here with Mr. Gifford yesterday, and mingled his admiration with the rest. Mr. Ward is much delighted with the unexpected charge of the Dervis— “Up rose the Dervis, with that burst of light,” and Gifford did what I never knew him do before—he repeated several passages from memory, particularly the closing stanza,— “His death yet dubious, deeds too widely known.” Indeed, from what I have observed, from the very general and unvarying sentiment which I have now gathered, the suffrages are decidedly in favour of this poem in preference to the ‘Bride of Abydos,’ and are even now balancing with ‘The Giaour.’ I have heard no one pass without noticing, and without expressing regret at, the idea thrown out by your Lordship of writing no more for a considerable time. I am really marking down, without suppression or extension, literally what I have heard. I was with Mr. Shee this morning, to whom I had presented the poem; and he declared himself to have been delighted, and swore he had long placed you far beyond any contemporary bard; and, indeed, your last poem does, in the opinion of almost all that I have conversed with. I have the highest encomiums in letters from Croker and Mr. Hay; but I rest most upon the warm feeling it has created in Gifford’s critical heart. The versification is thought highly of indeed. After printing the poems at the end of the first edition, I transplanted them to ‘Childe Harold,’ conceiving that you would have the goodness to pardon this ruse to give additional impetus to that poem, and to assist in making it a more respectable thickness. I sent, previous to publication, copies to all your friends, containing the poems at the end; and one of them has provoked a great deal of discussion, so much so, that I expect to sell off the whole edition of ‘Childe Harold’ merely to get at it. You have no notion of the sensation which the publication has occasioned; and my only regret is that you were not present to witness it

I earnestly trust that your Lordship is well: and with ardent compliments,

I remain, my Lord, Your obliged and faithful Servant, John Murray .

P.S.—I have very strong reasons to believe that the Bookseller at Newark continues to reprint—not altering the Edition—your early poems. Perhaps you would ascertain this fact.

With regard to the transference of some separate verses from the ‘Corsair’ to ‘Childe Harold,’ to which Mr. Murray alludes, Byron wrote on February 5: “On second and third thoughts the withdrawing the small poems from the ‘Corsair’ (even to add to ‘Childe Harold’) looks like shrinking and shuffling after the fuss made upon them by one of the Tories.”

John Murray to Lord Byron.

February, 1814. My Lord,

I have allowed myself to indulge in the pleasure I derived from the expression of your satisfaction, because I have anticipated the point upon which there was likely to be some uneasiness. As soon as I perceived the fuss that was made about certain lines, I caused them to be immediately reinstated; and I wrote on Saturday to inform you that I had done so. A conviction of duty made me do this. I can assure you, with the most unreserved sincerity, that ‘Childe Harold’ did not require the insertion of the lines which have made so much noise to assist its sale; but they made it still more attractive, and my sordid propensities got the better of me. I sold at once nearly a thousand copies of this new edition; and I am convinced, by the collected and unshaken opinions of the best critics, that it is just as certain of becoming a Classic, as Thomson or Dryden. What delights me is, that amidst the most decided applause, there is a constant difference as to which is the best of your poems. Gifford declared to me again, the other day, that you would last far beyond any poet of the present day. I tried him particularly as to Campbell, but he had not a doubt about the certainty of your passing him. Although, therefore, I may concur with you in feeling; some little surprise at such unprecedented triumph over people’s prejudices, yet I can differ, upon very solid reasons, from your notion of “temporary reputation.” I declare that I have not heard one expression of disappointment or doubtful satisfaction upon reading ‘The Corsair,’ which bids fair to be the most popular of your poems. You cannot meet a man in the street who has not read or heard read ‘The Corsair.’

The facsimile is restored to ‘Childe Harold,’ only 200 copies having been sent out without it. The poem on the ‘Skull Cup’ is introduced. I long to have the pleasure of congratulating your Lordship personally. Your noble conduct to a schoolfellow does not lessen the admiration with which I remain, &c.,

John Murray .

While ‘The Corsair’ was in the press, Lord Byron dedicated it to Mr. Moore; and at the end of the poem he added ‘Stanzas on a Lady Weeping.’ When the work appeared with his name on the titlepage, he was attacked in the leading newspapers; and his life, his sentiments, and his works, were violently assailed. The Courier alleged of him that he had received large sums of money for his writings. Lord Byron was extremely galled by these attacks, and permitted Mr. Dallas to defend his character in the newspapers.

“I take upon me,” said Mr. Dallas, “to affirm that Lord Byron never received a shilling for any of his works. To my certain knowledge, the profits of ‘The Satire’ were left entirely to the publisher of it. The gift of the copyright of ‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,’ I have already publicly acknowledged, in the dedication of the new edition of my novels; and I now add my acknowledgment for that of ‘The Corsair;’ not only for the profitable part of it, but for the delicate and delightful manner of bestowing it, while yet unpublished. With respect to his two other poems, ‘The Giaour’ and ‘The Bride of Abydos,’ Mr. Murray, the publisher of them, can truly attest that no part of the sale of those has ever touched his Lordship’s hands, or been disposed of for his use.”

Lord Byron himself said of this letter:—“Dallas had, perhaps, have better kept silence; but that was his concern, and as his facts are correct, and his motive not dishonourable to himself, I wished him well through it.”

Mr. Murray also was desirous of contradicting the state-ment published in the Courier, on different grounds. Byron had at first expressed his intention of giving the publisher the copyright of ‘The Giaour,’ though he afterwards consented to receive one thousand guineas for it and ‘The Bride of Abydos.’ But his subsequent transfer of this sum to Dallas, however galling to Mr. Murray, did not absolve the publisher from his agreement with Lord Byron.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

February 26th, 1814. My Lord,

You appeared to be so satisfactorily convinced that silence would be most becoming, that I wrote the note to Mr. Dallas late on Saturday evening, with the hope of preventing the publication of his letter. The meaning of the “expressions” pointed out by you in my note is, that having formerly told Mr. Gifford, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Frere, Mr. Ward, Mr. Canning, and many other of my friends, that you had given me the copyright of ‘The Giaour,’ and having had occasion subsequently to unsay this, it would be placing my assertions in a very doubtful light, if I allow it to be insinuated publicly that I am to pay nothing for this poem, or for ‘The Bride of Abydos.’ You do not seem to be aware that I feel as much bound by my promise to pay you a thousand guineas for the copyright of ‘The Giaour’ and ‘Bride of Abydos’ in May next, as I am by my bond to give Lord Sheffield £1000 for ‘Gibbon.’

My expression to Madame de Staël was, not that I had actually “paid,” but that I had “given” you 1000 guineas for these two poems, because it is as much as the 500 guineas for ‘The Corsair,’ which I am to pay in two, four, and six months; and I must confess that at the time I stated this circumstance to Madame de Staël, I was not aware of your liberal intentions with regard to this sum; for I did not then conceive it possible that you would have resumed your gift of ‘The Giaour’ to me, to bestow it on another; and, therefore, the explanation of that part of Mr. Dallas’s letter which refers to me is, that although Lord Byron has not actually received anything for ‘The Giaour’ and ‘Bride,’ yet I am under an engagement to pay him a thousand guineas for them in May.

But, as Mr. Dallas’s letter was published, and as your Lordship appeared to approve of it, I said nothing; nor should I have said anything further if you had not commanded this explanation. I declare I think these things are very unworthy a place in your mind. Why allow “a blight on our blade” to prevent you from reaping and revelling in the rich and superabundant harvest of Fame, which your inspired labours have created? I am sure, my Lord, if you will give the matter reflection, my conduct towards you has uniformly been that of a very humble, but very faithful friend.

I have the honour to be, Your Lordship’s obliged and obedient Servant, John Murray .

The ‘Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte,’ which appeared in April 1814, was on the whole a failure. It was known to be Lord Byron’s, and its publication was seized upon by the press as the occasion for many bitter criticisms, mingled with personalities against the writer’s genius and character. He was cut to the quick by these notices, and came to the determination to buy back the whole of the copyrights of his works, and suppress every line he had ever written. On the 29th of April, 1814, he wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Lord Byron to John Murray.

April 29th, 1814.

I enclose a draft for the money; when paid, send the copyrights. I release you from the thousand pounds agreed on for ‘The Giaour’ and ‘Bride,’ and there’s an end. . . . For all this, it might be well to assign some reason. I have none to give, except my own caprice, and I do not consider the circumstance of consequence enough to require explanation. . . . It will give me great pleasure to preserve your acquaintance, and to consider you as my friend. Believe me very truly, and for much attention,

Yours, &c. Byron .

Mr. Murray was of course very much concerned at this determination. He appealed with good effect to his lordship’s considerateness and good nature; and three days later, Lord Byron revoked his determination. To Mr. Murray, he wrote (1 May, 1814):—

“If your present note is serious, and it really would be inconvenient, there is an end of the matter; tear my draft, and go on as usual: in that case, we will recur to our former basis.”

Before the end of the month, Lord Byron began the composition of his next poem ‘Lara,’ usually considered a continuation of ‘The Corsair.’ It was published conjointly with Mr. Rogers’s ‘Jacqueline.’ “Rogers and I,” said Lord Byron to Moore, “have almost coalesced into a joint invasion of the public. Whether it will take place or not, I do not yet know, and I am afraid ‘Jacqueline’ (which is very beautiful) will be in bad company. But in this case, the lady will not be the sufferer.”

Murray wrote to Lord Byron as follows:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

My Lord,

Mr. Rogers called to-day with his poem to be printed with yours. I send the first sheet of Gifford’s copy of the proof. The rest I will get (if not to-day) to-morrow. Mr. Ward has read the proof, and admires the poem greatly. I suggested if it were not too semblable —he said it showed uncommon talent to exhibit the same portrait in so many lights.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

August 6th, 1814.

I am really grateful for your obliging sufferance of my desire to publish ‘Lara;’ for I am sure you know that the respect I bear you in every way would not have allowed me to do this without your consent. I had anticipated this, and had done everything but actually deliver the copies of ‘Lara;’ and the moment I received your letter, for for it I waited, I cut the last cord of my aerial work, and at this instant six thousand copies are gone! I have sent copies, I believe, to every one of your friends; and, without an exception, they are delighted, and their praise is most particularly and rootedly confirmed on a second perusal, which proves to them that your researches into the human heart and character are at once wonderful and just. Mr. Frere likes the poem greatly, and particularly admires the first canto. I mentioned the passage in the second canto—descriptive of the morning after the battle, which delighted me so much, and indeed Mr. Wilmot and many other persons. His remark was that he thought it rather too shocking. This is perhaps a little fastidious. Sir Jno. Malcolm, whom I have not seen since, called to express his satisfaction; and by the way, I may add that Mr. Frere has been here this moment to take another copy with him to read again in his carriage. He told me that Mr. Canning liked it equally. Mr. Frere, and in his report, Mr. Canning, are the only persons who have spoken in praise of ‘Jacqueline’; but they say it is beautiful, and this is a host. There is an obvious tendency to disparage ‘Jacqueline,’ but I think it is unjust and will be overcome.

Against the formidable attack upon my advertisement, I feel “perfectly secure.” Imprimis, the words are Gifford’s. In the second place, Mr. Frere denies that they are not grammar, and in the third place no other person has noticed them, and those to whom I suggested the alleged incorrectness agree that they can be noticed only by fastidiousness and hypercriticism of friendship. Who, in such a poem, would stop for a moment at a word in the preface? Moreover, here is Johnson for you, and (thank God) for your publisher, who, now that his author is found out to be Dryden, is I suppose to be treated like Tonson, but to Johnson:

That (1) not this

(2) which; relating to an antecedent thing— “The mark that is set before him.”— Perkins . “The time that clogs me.”— Shakespeare . “Bones that hasten to be so.”— Cowley . “Judgment that is equal.”— Wilkins . Are you answered?

Mr. Merivale is here, and subscribes to the opinion in favour of that.

I felt more about the publication of these lines than I could express, and therefore I said nothing. It was most shameful to print at all, but with the name it was villanous. I saw them only in the Chronicle, and I rejoice that they did not originate with our friend Perry—they spoil that tone of harmony towards your Lordship which had been so powerfully struck into the public mind by Jeffrey; everybody thinks highly of the talent of the article in the E. R., and is in accord with its sentiments throughout.

I must remain some days yet to watch the progress of the demand for ‘Lara;’ and therefore, as I could not attend my family to Scotland, I rather think of going to Paris first, and afterwards to the North. You do not tell me, and perhaps cannot, the time of your return. I have now deciphered the last part of your note, made obscure by the erasure of some valuable remarks, and rejoice that I shall have the pleasure of seeing you in town next week.

John Murray .

The two poems were published anonymously in the following August (1814): Murray allowing 500 guineas for the copyright of each. The conjunction of the two produced some fairish jokes.

“A friend of mine,” Lord Byron wrote to Moore, “was reading ‘Larry and Jacquy’ in a Brighton coach. A passenger took up the book, and queried as to the author. The proprietor said there were two—to which the answer of the unknown was, ‘Ay, ay, a joint concern, I suppose, summat like Sternhold and Hopkins!’”

Lord Byron now contemplated a collection of his works, ‘Lara’ completing the series, an intention to which the postscript of the following letter refers:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

Brighton. My Dear Lord,

I enclose a letter, not without most serious compunctions, which shall not be excited upon any similar occasion. I rejoice to hear that you are yet making improvements upon ‘The Giaour.’ It is a series of gems that well deserve the finest polish.

We are rather dull here, though the place is quite full, for the Prince Regent’s appearance or behaviour either prevented from coming, or drove away from the place, all respectable people. He was more outrageously dissipated the short time he was here than ever, and he has sunk into the company of the vilest of his former associates, Lord Barrymore, &c.

Lord Sheffield has been so good as to invite me to pass some days at his house, where I shall go on Wednesday, in case you have occasion to write.

I dine to-day with three of my authors, D’Israeli, Prince Hoare and Northcote.

I am ever, &c. John Murray .

P.S.—I am advancing in the Fourth volume of the Works, which will consist of: ‘Ode to Buonaparte,’ ‘Poems at end of Childe Harold,’ ‘Poems at end of Corsair,’ ‘Death of Sir P. Parker,’ and anything unpublished.

CHAPTER XI. MR. MURRAY’S REMOVAL TO 50 ALBEMARLE STREET.

We must now revert to the beginning of 1812, at which time Mr. William Miller, who commenced business in Bond Street in 1791, and had in 1804 removed to 50, Albemarle Street, desired to retire from “the Trade.” He communicated his resolve to Mr. Murray, who had some time held the intention of moving westward from Fleet Street, and had been on the point of settling in Pall Mall. Murray at once entered into an arrangement with Miller, and in a letter to Mr. Constable of Edinburgh he observed:—

John Murray to Mr. A. Constable. May 1st, 1812.

“You will probably have heard that Miller is about to retire, and that I have ventured to undertake to succeed him. I had for some time determined upon moving, and I did not very long hesitate about accepting his offer. I am to take no part of his stock but such as I may deem expedient, and for it and the rest I shall have very long credit. How far it may answer, I know not; but if I can judge of my own views, I think it may prove an advantageous opening. Miller’s retirement is very extraordinary, for no one in the trade will believe that he has made a fortune; but from what he has laid open to me, it is clear that he has succeeded. In this arrangement, I propose of course to dispose of my present house, and my medical works, with other parts of my business. I have two offers for it, waiting my decision as to terms. . . . I am to enter at Miller’s on the 29th of September next.”*

The terms arranged with Mr. Miller were as follows: The lease of the house, No. 50, Albemarle Street, was purchased by Mr. Murray, together with the copyrights, stock, &c., for the sum £3822 12s. 6d.; Mr. Miller receiving as surety, during the time the purchase money remained unpaid, the copyright of ‘Domestic Cookery,’ of the Quarterly Review, and the one-fourth share in ‘Marmion.’ The debt was not finally paid off until the year 1821.

The year after this arrangement had been completed, and after Mr. Murray had entered into possession of the premises, we find Miller making a claim upon his successor for “a copy of every work that he should publish.” This was a preposterous application, and Murray repudiated any such arrangement.

John Murray to Mr. Wm. Miller. August 12th, 1813.

“I should be glad to know upon what grounds you can require the fulfilment of an ‘honorary contract’ who could sit down and in cold blood write your farewell demands upon your best customers without mentioning the name of your successor; though he but a few days before had paid you a sum that went far towards securing the comfort of your future existence. The fact is, Miller, I have never received from you any one act of friendship since I purchased your house, when you appeared

* The Fleet Street business was eventually purchased by Thomas and George Underwood. It appears from the ‘Memoirs of Adam Black,’ that Black was for a short time a partner with the Underwoods. But on the latter requiring double the money that had been agreed upon when the formal deed of partnership was drawn up, Adam Black quitted the business in 1813. Upon the failure of the Underwoods in 1831, Mr. Samuel Highley, son of Mr. Murray’s former partner, took possession, and the name of Highley again appeared over the door.

to leave me to my fate,—never entering the door, as was remarked by the common porter, except for your own convenience. Your ‘goodwill’ has never produced me one hundred pounds, and the books which you said ‘were you upon your deathbed, as my friend, you would advise me to take,’ will prove a considerable loss. . . . It was neither my wish nor my intention to have replied to your letter to me, because that letter was, in my opinion unnecessary; and because the explanations which it provoked were not calculated to make us better friends. But as you appear so much to desire an answer, you now have an answer. I will only add that the terms of our future acquaintance shall be regulated entirely by your own feelings.”

The step which Murray had taken was so momentous and the responsibility so great, that at times he was driven almost to the verge of despondency. On the other hand it was much more convenient for him to have his place of business near to the residences of his principal contributors and editor, for Gifford lived near at hand, in James Street, Buckingham Gate.

The Quarterly was gradually rising in importance, and taking position as the leading political and literary review. The circulation was gradually creeping up; new editions of the early numbers were called for, and the remuneration of the editor was doubled,—an evidence of no small importance as to the success of the periodical.

Amongst the miscellaneous works which Mr. Murray published shortly after his removal to Albemarle Street, were William Sotheby’s translation of the ‘Georgics of Virgil’—the most perfect translation, according to Lord Jeffrey, of a Latin classic which exists in our language; Robert Bland’s ‘Collection from the Greek Anthology’; Prince Hoare’s ‘Epochs of the Arts’; Lord Glenbervie’s work on the ‘Cultivation of Timber’; Granville Penn’s ‘Bioscope, or Dial of Life explained’; John Herman Merivale’s ‘Orlando in Roncesvalles’; and Sir James Hall’s splendid work on ‘Gothic Architecture.’ Besides these, there was a very important contribution to our literature—in the ‘Miscellaneous Works of Gibbon’ in 5 volumes, for the copyright of which Mr. Murray paid Lord Sheffield the sum of £1000. Mr. Murray’s publications were not confined to any special branches of literature, but he was always careful to accept only such works as possessed intrinsic worth of their own.

About this time Murray had the honour of making the acquaintance of Sir John Malcolm, and he retained the friendship of that most able, genial, and popular of men to the end of his life. In 1812 he published Malcolm’s ‘Sketch of the Sikhs,’ and in the following year Mr. Macdonald Kinneir’s ‘Persia.’ Mr. D’Israeli also brought out the continuation of his ‘Curiosities of Literature.’ The ‘Calamities of Authors’ appeared in 1812, and Murray forwarded copies of the work to Scott and Southey.

Mr. Scott to John Murray. July 2nd, 1812.

“I owe you best thanks for the ‘Calamities of Authors,’ which has all the entertaining and lively features of the ‘Amenities of Literature.’ I am just packing them up with a few other books for my hermitage at Abbotsford, where my present parlour is only 12 feet square, and my book-press in Liliputian proportion. Poor Andrew Macdonald I knew in days of yore, and could have supplied some curious anecdotes respecting him. He died of a poet’s consumption, viz. want of food.

“The present volume of ‘Somers’* will be out immediately; with whom am I to correspond on this subject since the secession of Will. Miller? I shall be happy to hear you have succeeded to him in this department, as well as in Albemarle Street. What has moved Miller

* Lord Somers’ ‘Tracts,’ a new edition in 12 volumes.

to retire? He is surely too young to have made a fortune, and it is uncommon to quit a thriving trade. I have had a packet half finished for Gifford this many a day.”

Southey expressed himself as greatly interested in the ‘Calamities of Authors,’ and proposed to make it the subject of an article for the Quarterly.

Mr. Southey to John Murray. August 14th, 1812.

“I should like to enlarge a little upon the subject of literary property, on which he has touched, in my opinion, with proper feeling. Certainly I am a party concerned. I should like to say something upon the absurd purposes of the Literary Fund, with its despicable ostentation of patronage, and to build a sort of National Academy in the air, in the hope that Canning might one day lay its foundation in a more solid manner.* And I could say something on the other side of the picture, showing that although literature in almost all cases is the worst trade to which a man can possibly betake himself, it is the best and wisest of all pursuits for those whose provision is already made, and of all amusements for those who have leisure to amuse themselves. It has long been my intention to leave behind me my own Memoirs, as a post-obit for my family—a wise intention no doubt, and one which it is not very prudent to procrastinate. Should this ever be completed, it would exhibit a case directly in contrast to D’Israeli’s view of the subject. I chose literature for my own profession, with every advantage of education it is true, but under more disadvantages perhaps of any other kind than any of the persons in his catalogue. I have never repented the choice. The usual censure, ridicule, and even calumnies, which it has drawn on me never gave me a moment’s pain; but on the other hand, literature has given me friends; among the

* Canning had his own opinion on the subject. When the Royal Society of Literature was about to be established, an application was made to him to join the committee. He refused, for reasons “partly general, partly personal.” He added, “I am really of opinion, with Dr. Johnson, that the multitudinous personage, called The Public, is after all, the best patron of literature and learned men.”

best and wisest and most celebrated of my contemporaries it has given me distinction. If I live twenty years longer, I do not doubt that it will give me fortune, and if it pleases God to take me before my family are provided for, I doubt as little that in my name and in my works they will find a provision. I want to give you a ‘Life of Wesley.’ The history of the Dissenters must be finished by that time, and it will afford me opportunity.”

Southey’s ‘Life of Nelson,’ expanded from the Quarterly article, had now come out, and was received with general admiration. Southey himself said, “I like the ‘Life of Nelson’ well enough to be glad that I have written it.” He told Murray that Croker had sent him a very flattering opinion of it, and had “communicated some valuable facts for improving it in a second edition, if it should have the fortune to reach one.” “The entire book will arrive tomorrow, and I shall then have the greatest and last joy of an author—that of seeing his work for the first time as a whole, and in its printed form.”

In the course of the following year Southey proposed to Murray to write the ‘History of the Peninsular War.’ His connection with the Edinburgh Annual Register had now ceased, and he thought it better to erect a finished building for himself than to rest content with preparing materials for others. Murray was pleased with Southey’s proposal, and consulted Gifford on the subject, who cordially approved. Accordingly Murray offered 1000 guineas for the work to Southey, who shortly afterwards made a visit to London to collect materials, and on his return to Keswick wrote as follows:—

Mr. Southey to John Murray. November 27th, 1813.

“Here then I am once more at my desk, with my books and papers about me, right glad to return to that rest in labour which I have taken for my motto, because in it I find my happiness. The winter is before me. I shall have no interruptions from without, and please God that I have none from within, my progress in this campaign will be to my heart’s content, and as rapid as you could wish.”

He then proceeded to enumerate the books he required both for his ‘History of the Peninsular War’ and for ‘The Book of the Church;’ and added that he proposed to send for the Quarterly articles on ‘The Nicobar Islands,’ ‘The Copyright Question,’ and Montgomery’s ‘World before the Flood.’

Mr. Murray had arranged with the African Association to publish Mungo Park’s last ‘Travels in Africa,’ and to pay £1200 for the copyright, but on finding that the most important part of the travels had been published, without his knowledge, in the ‘Annals of Philosophy,’ he wrote to the managers expostulating with them and withdrawing his offer.

“You will be fully sensible,” he said in his letter, “that this premature publication has ruined completely my edition of Mr. Park’s Journal, of which Isaaco’s voyage forms as essential a part, as the fifth act does to a play; and I am confident that the justice of the managers of the African Association will immediately release me from an engagement which has been thus most unfortunately violated.”

The following letter to John Whishaw, Esq., Lincoln’s Inn, Secretary to the African Association, gives a further account of the transaction:—

John Murray to Mr. Whishaw. November 9th, 1814.

“‘Isaaco’s Journal’ was always an important part of my calculation, and this importance to me is not only from its addition which enables me to form the papers into a saleable volume, but as the ‘Journal of a Native African,’ written in the Arabic language by himself, and containing the result of his travels into the same countries visited by Mr. Park, and presenting to the public the early authentic circumstances collected on the spot by this lamented traveller, it promised to create an interest with the world nearly as great as Mr. Park’s work itself. Hence it has always been an object of primary moment to the success of the publication. The anticipatory publication of Isaaco’s paper has not only deprived me of all this benefit, but has destroyed the largest part of the rest of the speculation. I did not offer £1200 on the idea that the present papers of Mr. Park were, like his former travels, of that intrinsic value that they would be saleable and popular on their own merit—unfortunately they are not—but both the Society and I know that Mr. Park’s disappearance had left an anxious curiosity in the public to know what had really become of him. This feeling is now gratified. ‘Isaaco’s Journal,’ containing all this information, has been published without my knowledge and contrary to my expectation and contract, in one of the most popular and respectable journals of the day, which goes to every part of the country. The circumstances as to the last scene of Mr. Park’s life have been extracted into almost all the newspapers, and thus every one knows what I meant no one to be informed of except from my book. All the sale from this popular curiosity is therefore gone.

“Thus circumstanced, I submit to the Institution that it is impossible that £1200 copyright can be given for the work, and therefore I trust that they will see the equity of rescinding the contract altogether, and leaving both parties as they stood before it was made. If the work is worth that, other booksellers may be applied to. If the value of the work is destroyed or diminished, I submit most respectfully that I ought not to be injured who have in no respect contributed to the act which has produced the injury. I have only to add that the same principles which urged me at first to offer so considerable a sum will induce me to cooperate in any new arrangement for the benefit of Mr. Park’s family, and I should be happy in any early opportunity of conversing upon this subject.”

The volume was accordingly published by the African Association at their offices in Lincoln’s Inn, though it afterwards came into Mr. Murray’s hands, as will be seen from future correspondence.

During the year 1813 the recklessness of the younger Ballantyne, combined with the formation of the incipient estate at Abbotsford, were weighing heavily on Walter Scott. This led to a fresh alliance with Constable, “in which,” wrote Scott, “I am sensible he has gained a great advantage;” but in accordance with the agreement Constable, in return for a share in Scott’s new works, was to relieve the Ballantynes of some of their heavy stock, and in May Scott was enabled “for the first time these many weeks to lay my head on a quiet pillow.” But nothing could check John Ballantyne. “I sometimes fear,” wrote Scott to him, “that between the long dates of your bills and the tardy settlements of the Edinburgh trade, some difficulties will occur even in June; and July I always regard with deep anxiety.” How true this forecast proved to be is shown by the following letter:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, 5th July, 1813.

I delayed answering your favour, thinking I could have overtaken the ‘Dæmonology’ for the Review, but I had no books in the country where it found me, and since that Swift, who is now nearly finished, has kept me incessantly labouring. When that is off my hand I will have plenty of leisure for reviewing, though you really have no need of my assistance. The volume of ‘Somers’ being now out of my hands I take the liberty to draw at this date as usual for £105. Now I have a favour to ask which I do with the more confidence because, if it is convenient and agreeable to you to oblige me in the matter, it will be the means of putting our connection as author and publisher upon its former footing, which I trust will not be disagreeable to you. I am making up a large sum of money to pay for a late purchase, and as part of my funds is secured on an heritable bond which cannot be exacted till Martinmas, I find myself some hundreds short, which the circumstances of the money market here renders it not so easy to supply as formerly. Now if you will oblige me by giving me a lift with your credit and accepting the enclosed bills,* it will accommodate me particularly at this moment, and as I shall have ample means of putting you in cash to replace them as they fall due, will not, I should hope, occasion you any inconvenience. Longmans’ house on a former occasion obliged me in this way, and I hope found their account in it. But I entreat you will not stand on the least ceremony should you think you could not oblige me without inconveniencing yourself. The property I have purchased cost about £5,000, so it is no wonder I am a little out for the moment. Will you have the goodness to return an answer in course of post, as, failing your benevolent aid, I must look about elsewhere.

You will understand distinctly that I do not propose that you should advance any part of the money by way of loan or otherwise, but only the assistance of your credit, the bills being to be retired by cash remitted by me before they fall due.

Believe me, very truly, Your obedient Servant, Walter Scott .

Mr. Murray at once replied:—

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

July 8th, 1813. Dear Sir,

I have the pleasure of returning accepted the bills which I received from you this morning. In thus availing myself of your confidential application, I trust that you will do me the justice to believe that it is done for kindness already received, and not with the remotest view towards prospective advantages. I shall at all times feel proud of being one of your publishers, but this must be allowed to arise solely out of your own feelings and convenience when the occasions shall present themselves. I am sufficiently content in the belief that even negative obstacles to our perfect confidence have now subsided.

* Three bills for £300 each at three, four, and six months respectively.

When weightier concerns permit we hope that you will again appear in our Review. In confidence I may tell you that your long silence led us to avail ourselves of your friend Mr. Rose’s offer to review Ferriar,* and his article is already printing.

I will send you a new edition of the ‘Giaour’ in which there are one or two stanzas added of peculiar beauty.

I trust that your family are well, and remain, dear Sir,

Your obliged and faithful Servant, John Murray .

Within a few months of this correspondence, Scott was looking into an old writing-desk† in search of some fishing-tackle, when his eye chanced to light upon the Ashestiel fragment of ‘Waverley,’ begun several years before. He read over the introductory chapters, and then determined to finish the story. It is said that he first offered it anonymously to Sir R. Phillips, London, who refused to publish it. ‘Waverley’ was afterwards accepted by Constable & Company, and published on half profits, on the 7th of July, 1814. When it came out, Murray got an early copy of the novel; he read it, and sent it to Mr. Canning, and wrote upon the title-page, “By Walter Scott.” The reason why he fixed upon Scott as the author was as follows. When he met Ballantyne at Boroughbridge, in 1809, to settle some arrangements as to the works which Walter Scott proposed to place in his hands for publication, he remembered that among those works were three—1st, an edition of ‘Beaumont and Fletcher’; and, a poem; and 3rd, a novel. Now, both the edition of ‘Beaumont and Fletcher’ (though edited by Weber) and the poem, the ‘Lady of the Lake’ had been published; and now, at last,

* Dr. Ferriar on ‘Apparitions.’

† This writing-desk was given, after Sir Walter’s death, to the wife of his friend Daniel Terry, and by her to her brother James Nasmyth, by whom it was bequeathed, in 1890, to John Murray, junior.

appeared the novel* He was confirmed in his idea that Walter Scott was the author after carefully reading the book. Canning called on Murray next day; said he had begun it, found it very dull, and concluded: “You are quite mistaken; it cannot be by Walter Scott.” But a few days later he wrote to Murray: “Yes, it is so; you are right: Walter Scott, and no one else.”

In the midst of his labours and anxieties, Scott had not forgotten Gifford and the Quarterly Review.

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, January 6th, 1814. My dear Sir,

I had quite forgot the unaccepted bill, which I took it for granted was returned to Edinburgh; but on calling at Sir W. Forbes’s they told me the proceeds were at my credit with them, which is quite as broad as it is long, so you may depend on having it with interest, etc., two days before it falls due. I am just now labouring to bring ‘Swift’ to a close, as Constable is not unreasonably very desirous to have it out. I trust to correct the last proof this month, and then I have not much to do, and I will turn to reviewing to make up leeway, but above all to please Gifford who has reason to complain of me. I think I shall be in town in spring, unless the state of Holland is such as to tempt me to go there, which I should like very much—but this is all contingent. If the roads were safe for a non-combatant I would endeavour to reach the camp of the allies, providing Lord Aberdeen were there, who is an old friend. As to subjects of reviews, I have a very curious American book of great humour, on which I have long meditated an article, as it is quite unknown in this country, and the quotations are very diverting; I should have done this at

* Indeed, in Ballantyne & Company’s printed list of ‘New Works and Publications for 1809-10,’ issued August 1810 (now before us), we find the following entry: “Waverley; or, ’Tis Sixty Years Since; a novel in 3 vols. 12mo.” The work was not, however, published until July 1814.

Abbotsford, but there I had no amanuensis, and here I have no time for the old growling Dean of St. Patrick’s. I will also try the ‘Calamities of Authors,’ but was it not reviewed before? I can say little excepting in addition to the history of MacDonald and Heron, both of whom I knew; the former was a man of high genius, the latter a mere sot and beast—both were starved to death. I have read Lord Byron’s ‘Bride of Abydos’ with great delight, and only delay acknowledging the receipt of a copy from the author till I can send him a copy of the ‘Life of Swift.’ Is he in town at present?

Yours very truly, Walter Scott .

Scott’s next letter is interesting as bearing witness to a fact which even Scott himself would appear to have overlooked in later years. In his diary for June 10, 1827, we read: “A good thought came into my head to write stories for little Johnnie Lockhart from the history of Scotland like those taken from the history of England.” Now it is obvious from the following letter that the idea had presented itself to his mind twenty years earlier; that the ‘Letters of a Father’ gave place to ‘Tales of a Grandfather’ is probably due to the brilliant fresh career which was, at the earlier date, first opening itself to the author of ‘Waverley.’

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Abbotsford, October 20th, 1814. Dear Sir,

The dissensions of you great potentates of literature in the case of ‘Marmion’ was the only reason of my not proposing to you to be a sharer in ‘The Lord of the Isles.’ From personal regard I would willingly have given you (were you to think it as like to prove advantageous) the share you wish, but you know how disagreeable it is to be involved in disputes among one’s publishers which you cannot accommodate. In casting about how I might show you some mark of my sense of former kindness, a certain MS. History of Scotland in ‘Letters to My Children’ has occurred to me which I consider as a desideratum; it is upon the plan of ‘Lord Littleton’s Letters,’ as they are called. A small experimental edition might be hazarded in spring without a name, not that I am anxious upon the score of secrecy, but because I have been a great publisher of late. About this I shall be glad to speak with you, and I am happy to find I shall have an opportunity of seeing you at this place on Wednesday or Thursday next week, which will give me great pleasure, as I want to hear about Ellis and Gifford, but especially about Lord Byron.

Yours very faithfully, Walter Scott .

Mr. Lockhart makes a passing allusion to these Letters, but doubts if any portion of them were actually written. The following passage, however, would seem to show that the work had advanced further than Mr. Lockhart was aware of.

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Saturday, Piccadilly, 1815. My dear Sir,

I regret your accident much, of which I only learned the extent from the papers. I hope you will soon get well, and I am heartily sorry I cannot bid you good-bye in person. I intend to revise my letters on ‘Scottish History’ for you, but I will not get to press till November, for the country affords no facilities for consulting the necessary authorities. I hope it may turn out a thing of some interest, though I rather intend to keep to its original purpose as a book of instruction to children.

Yours very truly, W. Scott .

In the autumn of 1814 Mrs. Murray went to Leith by sailing-ship from the Thames, to visit her mother and friends in Edinburgh. She was accompanied by her son John and her two daughters. During her absence, Mr. Murray wrote to her two or three times a week, and kept her au courantwith the news of the day. In his letter of the 9th of August he intimated that he had been dining with D’Israeli, and that he afterwards went with him to Sadler’s Wells Theatre to see the ‘Corsair,’ at which he was “woefully disappointed and enraged. . . . They have actually omitted his wife altogether, and made him a mere ruffian, ultimately overcome by the Sultan, and drowned in the New River!”

Mr. Blackwood, of Edinburgh, was then in London, spending several days with Mr. Murray over their accounts and future arrangements. The latter was thinking of making a visit to Paris, in the company of his friend D’Israeli, during the peace which followed the exile of Napoleon to Elba. D’Israeli had taken a house at Brighton, from which place the voyagers intended to set sail, and make the passage to Dieppe in about fourteen hours. On the 13th of August, Mr. Murray informs his wife that, “Lord Byron was here yesterday, and I introduced him to Blackwood, to whom he was very civil. They say,” he added, “that Madame de Staël has been ordered to quit Paris, for writing lightly respecting the Bourbons.” Two days later he said:—

John Murray to Mrs. Murray. Aug. 15th, 1814.

“I dined yesterday with D’Israeli, and in the afternoon we partly walked and partly rode to Islington, to drink tea with Mrs. Lindo, who, with Mr. L. and her family, were well pleased to see me. Mr. Cervetto was induced to accompany the ladies at the piano with his violoncello, which he did delightfully. We walked home at 10 o’clock. On Saturday we passed a very pleasant day at Petersham with Turner and his family. . . . .

“I have got at last Mr. Eagle’s ‘Journal of Penrose, the Seaman,’ for which, as you may remember, I am to pay £200 in twelve months for 1000 copies: too dear perhaps; but Lord Byron sent me word this morning by letter (for he borrowed the MS. last night): ‘Penrose is most amusing. I never read so much of a book at one sitting in my life. He kept me up half the night, and made me dream of him the other half. It has all the air of truth, and is most entertaining and interesting in every point of view.’”

Of course Mr. Murray could not fail to refer to Gifford, his constant adviser in all literary matters, but Gifford was then rendered almost incapable of work by his close attendance on his faithful housekeeper Nancy, who was dying at the cottage he had taken for her accommodation at Ryde, in the Isle of Wight. Mr. Murray writes to Mrs. Murray, in Edinburgh:—

John Murray to Mrs. Murray. Aug. 22nd, 1814.

“I have just seen Mr. Gifford again to-day, and find that we are really so backward with our number—owing to his constant attendance on his dying housekeeper, at Ryde, where he was at length forced to leave her, without the slightest hope of recovery—that we have got almost every article to give out; and it will be impossible for me to leave town until I can see this important business in some decided train for arrangement. If this detain me long, I shall begin seriously to think of postponing my journey to Paris; and as I must go to Scotland, this latter excursion will occupy as much time as I can or ought to allow, with so many important works upon my hands. . . . .

“My mind is overgrown with weeds, and I have not courage to pluck them out. Blackwood dines here to-day, and sails to-morrow in the Lord Wellington.”

John Murray to Mrs. Murray. Aug. 24th, 1814.

“I went down to the wharf of the old Shipping Company yesterday, to see Blackwood off in the Lord Wellington; and I cannot describe to you the regret and vexation which I suffered at finding her one of the most beautiful, commodious, and sweet vessels that I ever entered—half as large again as the one you went in. I am convinced that, if you had gone in her, you would not have suffered one-third of the inconvenience you experienced from the vile pestiferous vessel in which you unfortunately sailed. You know we looked at several for Miss Crombie, but there did not appear to be a pin to choose between them. But the Lord Wellington is as different from any of these as our present house and situation are from those we left in Fleet Street. . . . .

“Lord Byron set out for Newstead on Sunday. It is finally settled to be his again, the proposed purchaser forfeiting £25,000. ‘Lara’ and ‘Jacqueline’ are nearly sold off, to the extent of 6000, which leaves me £130, and the certain sale of 10,000 more in the 8vo. form. Mr. Canning called upon Gifford yesterday, and from their conversation I infer very favourably for my Review. We shall now take a decided tone in Politics, and we are all in one boat. Croker has gone down to the Prince Regent, at Brighton, where I ought to have been last night, to have witnessed the rejoicings and splendour of the Duke of Clarence’s birthday. But I am ever out of luck. ‘O, indolence and indecision of mind! if not in yourselves vices, to how much exquisite misery do you frequently prepare the way!’ Have you come to this passage in ‘Waverley’ yet? Pray read ‘Waverley’; it is excellent.”

Aug. 29th, 1814.

“I believe I told you,” he adds, “that my Review is likely to be all the better for the proposed change in affairs; and that the higher persons are more heartily disposed towards it. Mr. Canning goes to Lisbon after visiting the Lakes. I have now sold the whole of the 6000 of ‘Lara’; Longman, who took 500 at first, sent for 250 more on Saturday. After a time I will print it alone, and hope to sell at least 10,000 more. Tell Blackwood, by a short note, to ship for me 250 of his, if he finds them not certain of immediate sale, as I have not one copy left.”

On the 5th September, 1814, Mr. Murray communicated with Mrs. Murray as to the education of his son John, then six-and-a-half years old:—

John Murray to Mrs. Murray.

“I am glad that you venture to say something about the children, for it is only by such minutiæ that I can judge of the manner in which they amuse or behave themselves. I really do not see the least propriety in leaving John, at an age when the first impressions are so deep and lasting, to receive the rudiments and foundation of his education in Scotland. If learning English, his native language, mean anything, it is not merely to read it correctly and understand it grammatically, but to speak and pronounce it like the most polished native. But how can you expect this to be effected, even with the aid of the best teachers, when everybody around him, with whom he can practise his instructions, speaks in a totally different manner. No! I rather think it better that he should go to Edinburgh after he has passed through the schools here, and when he is sixteen or seventeen. He should certainly go to some school next spring, and I most confidingly trust that you are unremitting in your duty to give him daily lessons of preparation, or he may be so far behind children of his age when he does go to school, that the derision he may meet there may destroy emulation. All this, however, is matter for serious consideration and for future consultation, in which your voice shall have its rightful influence. . . . .

“I am in distress at not being able to find some letters of Dr. Brewster to me, written in 1813, particularly one which contains his proposal about Robison’s works, by which I expect to lose certainly £500. He and Blackwood have got me into this scrape.* I am in constant correspondence with my friend Lord Sheffield, who has invited me again to visit him. Lord Byron offers to send me game, and Lady Caroline Lamb has again invited me

* Robison’s ‘Mechanical Philosophy.’ This work consisted of the articles by Dr. Robison on the “Steam Engine,” principally published in the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ edited by Dr. Brewster, with an Introduction by James Watt. Dr. Brewster required £800 for the copyright. Murray thought this too much, as the greater portion of the work had already been published in a popular form. Eventually Mr. Murray consented to give £500 for the first edition, and £300 more should a second edition be called for.

to dine at Brocket to meet Mr. Wilmot,* who, I am glad to find, speaks well of me.”

Mr. Murray was under the necessity of postponing his visit to France. He went to Brighton instead, and spent a few pleasant days with Mr. D’Israeli and his friends.

John Murray to Mrs. Murray. Sept. 14th, 1814.

“I pass my time with the D’Israelis, with whom I board altogether, and they are very kind to me. I have now settled finally not to go to France, and Mr. D’Israeli puts up with the disappointment, which it certainly is both to him and Mrs. D’I., with more than good humour, and even lays it upon himself. . . . .

“I have had such a letter from Mrs. Rundell, accusing me of neglecting her book,† stopping the sale, &c. Her conceit surpasses everything; but, as she again desires the Reviews to be sent to her, she shall have them, with a little truth in a moderate dose of remonstrance from me.”

On the 24th of September Mr. Murray, having returned to London, informed his wife, still at Edinburgh, of an extraordinary piece of news.

John Murray to Mrs. Murray.

“I was much surprised to learn from Dallas, whom I accidentally met yesterday, that Lord Byron was expected in town every hour. I accordingly left my card at his house, with a notice that I would attend him as soon as he pleased; and it pleased him to summon my attendance about seven in the evening. He had come to town on business, and regretted that he would not be at Newstead until a fortnight, as he wished to have seen me there on my way to Scotland. Says he, ‘Can you keep a secret?’ ‘Certainly—positively—my wife’s out of town!’ ‘Then—I am going to be married!’ ‘The devil! I shall have no poem this winter then?’ ‘No.’ ‘Who is the lady who is to do me this injury?’ ‘Miss Milbanke—do you know her?’ ‘No, my lord.’

“So here is news for you! I fancy the lady is rich,

* Afterwards Wilmot Horton . † ‘Domestic Cookery.’

noble, and beautiful; but this shall be my day’s business to enquire about. Oh! how he did curse poor Lady C—— as the fiend who had interrupted all his projects, and who would do so now if possible. I think he hinted that she had managed to interrupt this connexion two years ago. He thought she was abroad, and, to his torment and astonishment, he finds her not only in England, but in London. He says he has written some small poems which his friends think beautiful, particularly one of eight lines, his very best—all of which, I believe, I am to have; and, moreover, he gives me permission to publish the octavo edition of ‘Lara’ with his name, which secures, I think, £700 to you and me. So Scott’s poem is announced [’Lord of the Isles’], and I am cut out. I wish I had been in Scotland six weeks ago, and I might have come in for a share. Should I apply for one to him, it would oblige me to be a partner with Constable, who is desperately in want of money. He has applied to Cadell and Davies (the latter told me in confidence), and they refused.”

Sept. 26th, 1814.

“The instance which you mention brings very forcibly to my mind the loss which I have sustained by not keeping up my Scotch literary connexion, which I shall have much difficulty in revivifying. Had I been earlier in the field I cannot help thinking that Scott would have given me a share in his poem, which nevertheless I meditate to write to him about. Lord Byron sent me yesterday a hare and two brace of partridges; I was glad to send half of the latter to Gifford for his housekeeper, who is still very ill.”

At the beginning of October Mr. Murray went down to Nottingham for the purpose of visiting Newstead Abbey, Lord Byron having written to his steward to prepare for his reception. From Nottingham he writes to Mrs. Murray:—

John Murray to Mrs. Murray. Nottingham, Oct. 3rd, 1814.

“Here I am, writing to you amidst the din of 30,000 people who are employed in making stockings for nearly half as many millions. Moreover, I have been walking for two hours amongst some 30,000 well-dressed lads and lasses who have assembled at an immense fair held to-day in a market-place as large as Smithfield. It was really delightful to me, in the state of bachelorism to which you have reduced me, to come in contact with so many neat, healthy, and innocent damsels; but, when I add that there was not one amongst them who possessed the attractions of either your intellect or beauty, your alarm will yield to astonishment. Luckily for me, I have a letter from Lord Byron to his steward. I stopped at his inn, as otherwise it would have been impossible to have obtained either bed or board, for the town is four times full and offers one of the most interesting sights I have seen in the whole course of my travels. I arrived at 3 o’clock, sent off my letter to Newstead by post, and wrote on the back that I should be there to-morrow before 10.”

The following is Mr. Murray’s account of his visit to Newstead. His letter is dated Matlock, 5th October, 1814:—

“I got to Newstead about 11 o’clock yesterday and found the steward, my namesake, and the butler waiting for me. The first, who is good-looking and a respectable old man of about sixty-five years, showed me over the house and grounds, which occupied two hours, for I was anxious to examine everything. But never was I more disappointed, for my notions, I suppose, had been raised to the romantic. I had surmised the possibly easy restoration of this once famous abbey, the mere skeleton of which is now fast crumbling to ruin. Lord Byron’s immediate predecessor stripped the whole place of all that was splendid and interesting; and you may judge of what he must have done to the mansion when I inform you that he converted the ground, which used to be covered with the finest trees, like a forest, into an absolute desert. Not a tree is left standing, and the wood thus shamefully cut down was sold in one day for £60,000. The hall of entrance has about eighteen large niches, which had been filled with statues, and the side walls covered with family portraits and armour. All these have been mercilessly torn down, as well as the magnificent fireplace, and sold. All the beautiful paintings which filled the galleries—valued at that day at £80,000—have disappeared, and the whole place is crumbling into dust. No sum short of £100,000 would make the place habitable. Lord Byron’s few apartments contain some modern upholstery, but serve only to show what ought to have been there. They are now digging round the cloisters for a traditionary cannon, and in their progress, about five days ago, they discovered a corpse in too decayed a state to admit of removal. I saw the drinking-skull* and the marble mausoleum erected over Lord Byron’s dog. I came away with my heart aching and full of melancholy reflections—producing a lowness of spirits which I did not get the better of until this morning, when the most enchanting scenery I have ever beheld has at length restored me. I am far more surprised that Lord Byron should ever have lived at Newstead, than that he should be inclined to part with it; for, as there is no possibility of his being able, by any reasonable amount of expense, to reinstate it, the place can present nothing but a perpetual memorial of the wickedness of his ancestors. There are three, or at most four, domestics at board wages. All that I was asked to taste was a piece of bread-and-butter. As my foot was on the step of the chaise, when about to enter it, I was informed that his lordship had ordered that I should take as much game as I liked. What makes the steward, Joe Murray, an interesting object to me, is that the old man has seen the abbey in all its vicissitudes of greatness and degradation. Once it was full of unbounded hospitality and splendour, and now it is simply miserable. If this man has feelings—of which, by the way, he betrays no symptom—he would possibly be miserable himself. He has seen three hundred of the first people in the county filling the gallery, and seen five hundred deer disporting themselves in the beautiful park, now covered with stunted offshoots of felled trees. Again I say it gave me the heartache to witness all this ruin, and

* When the present Mr. Murray was a student in Edinburgh, he wrote to his father (April 10, 1827)—“I saw yesterday at a jeweller’s shop in Edinburgh a great curiosity, no less than Lord Byron’s skull cup, upon which he wrote the poem. It is for sale; the owner, whose name I could not learn (it appears he does not wish it known), wants £200 for it.

I regret that my romantic picture has been destroyed by the reality.”

One of Mr. Murray’s first duties on arriving at Edinburgh was to write to Lord Byron, and inform him of his visit to Newstead, and of the kindness with which he had been received by his steward and butler. He had also to convey to him the esteem in which his works were held across the border.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

“You will not be dissatisfied to learn how much you are esteemed by Dugald Stewart and his accomplished wife; they dined with me at my mother’s, and were minute in their enquiries about you, and vehement in their commendation. Ballantyne gave me a full account of the delightful manner in which Scott speaks of you. In one of his letters he says, ‘I want to hear about Ellis and Gifford, but especially about Lord Byron.’ I am neither chagrined nor vain at my spurious importance; but I do assure your lordship that I am very proud to see so completely realized all that my own mind and heart have felt for you.”

Among the friends that welcomed Mr. Murray to Edinburgh was Mr. William Blackwood, who then, and for a long time after, was closely connected with him in his business transactions. Blackwood was a native of Edinburgh; having served his apprenticeship with Messrs. Bell & Bradfute, booksellers, he was selected by Mundell & Company to take charge of a branch of their extensive publishing business in Glasgow. He returned to Edinburgh, and again entered the service of Bell & Bradfute; but after a time went to London to master the secrets of the old book trade under the well-known Mr. Cuthill. Returning to Edinburgh, he set up for himself in 1804, at the age of twenty-eight, at a shop in South Bridge Street —confining himself, for the most part, to old books. He was a man of great energy and decision of character, and his early education enabled him to conduct his correspondence with a remarkable degree of precision and accuracy. Mr. Murray seems to have done business with him as far back as June 1807, and was in the habit of calling upon Blackwood, who was about his own age, whenever he visited Edinburgh. The two became intimate, and corresponded frequently; and at last, when Murray withdrew from the Ballantynes, in August 1810, he transferred the whole of his Scottish agency to the house of William Blackwood. In return for the publishing business sent to him from London, Blackwood made Murray his agent for any new works published by him in Edinburgh. In this way Murray became the London publisher for Hogg’s new poems, and ‘The Queen’s Wake,’ which had reached its fourth edition.

During his visit to Edinburgh, he snatched a day to run out to Kinneil House,* near Boroughstoness, to see his relative and correspondent, Professor Dugald Stewart. After his return to Edinburgh, Mrs. Stewart wrote to him:—

Mrs. Stewart to John Murray.

“Next time you visit Scotland we must not be put off with a single day, but have a comfortable visit.” And with respect to literature she adds: “You, who live in novelties, can scarcely imagine the happiness a new book gives to us. We talk of it all day, and dream of it all night. It is only in that respect that the town is so superior to the country. Judge, then, how much obliged we are to any kind friend who allows us such a luxury.”

* Kinneil House is memorable as the place behind which, in the outhouse, Watt erected his first condensing steam engine for Dr. Roebuck, who then occupied the place. It was also the house in which Dugald Stewart wrote his ‘Philosophy of the Human Mind.’

Another visit which Mr. Murray paid at this time was to Mr. Scott, at Abbotsford. Towards the end of 1814, Scott had surrounded the original farmhouse with a number of buildings—kitchen, laundry, and spare bedrooms—and was able to entertain company. He received Murray with great cordiality, and made many enquiries as to Lord Byron, to whom Murray wrote on his return to London:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

“Walter Scott commissioned me to be the bearer of his warmest greetings to you. His house was full the day I passed with him; and yet, both in corners and at the surrounded table, he talked incessantly of you. Unwilling that I should part without bearing some mark of his love (a poet’s love) for you, he gave me a superb Turkish dagger to present to you, as the only remembrance which, at the moment, he could think of to offer you. He was greatly pleased with the engraving of your portrait, which I recollected to carry with me; and during the whole dinner—when all were admiring the taste with which Scott had fitted up a sort of Gothic cottage—he expressed his anxious wishes that you might honour him with a visit, which I ventured to assure him you would feel no less happy than certain in effecting when you should go to Scotland; and I am sure he would hail your lordship as ‘a very brother.’”

After all his visits had been paid, and he had made his arrangements with his printers and publishers, Mr. Murray returned to London with his wife and family. Shortly after his arrival he received a letter from Mr. Blackwood.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. Nov. 8th, 1814.

“I was much gratified by your letter informing me of your safe arrival. How much you must be overwhelmed just now, and your mind distracted by so many calls upon your attention at once. I hope that you are now in one of your best frames of mind, by which you are enabled, as you have told me, to go through, with more satisfaction to yourself, ten times the business you can do at other times. While you are so occupied with your great concerns, I feel doubly obliged to you for your remembrance of my small matters.”

After referring to his illness, he proceeds:—

“Do not reflect upon your visit to the bard (Walter Scott). You would have blamed yourself much more if you had not gone. The advance was made by him through Ballantyne, and you only did what was open and candid. We shall be at the bottom of these peoples’ views by-and-bye; at present I confess I only see very darkly—but let us have patience; a little time will develop all these mysteries. I have not seen Ballantyne since, and when I do see him I shall say very little indeed. If there really is a disappointment in not being connected with Scott’s new poem,* you should feel it much less than any man living—having such a poet as Lord Byron. Since I was a little better I have been again reading ‘Lara,’ and the delight it afforded me was exquisite. The very incongruities which a number of our small critics have been nibbling at, afforded me the highest enjoyment. . . . After the strong and kind interest Lord Byron has uniformly displayed to you, and the warmth and strength of his friendship, you may consider yourself a proud man indeed.”

Although Mr. Murray did not secure a share in Scott’s new poem, he succeeded in obtaining a share in ‘Don Roderick,’ one of Scott’s former poems, which he was about to reprint with considerable additions. When communicating with Murray on the subject, Scott said:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

“The property is with the Ballantynes, but, as I have an interest in it, I have desired them to offer you a third of the impression at the same terms as the other two publishers, as I think it will suit your sale better than any of

* This was ‘The Lord of the Isles,’ to which Murray had not been admitted as a partner by Ballantyne, though an understanding to that effect existed between the firms.

them, and as I would be happy to have your name on the title-page.”

The offer was accordingly made by the Ballantynes, and at once accepted.

Meanwhile the Quarterly continued to prosper, in spite of the irregularity of its appearance, and its circulation had increased to about seven thousand. Murray himself took the principal share in the correspondence. He beat up for new recruits, and regularly communicated with the old contributors. He tried again and again to induce Walter Scott to write more articles for the Review. We find him urging an article on Weber’s Romances.

“I trust,” he said, “that you have been prevented only by business. Is ‘Self-Control’ worthy of any review from you? It is rising into notice here, and perhaps you might like a subject that will not cost you much trouble. We are anxious for ‘Don Roderick,’ and wish one copy instantly for the Quarterly.”

Southey addressed all his letters and communications to Murray himself, and not to the editor. He greatly resented Gifford’s so-called “mutilations” of his articles, and often threatened to break away from the Quarterly. But the hundred guineas an article were more than he could resist, and he went on contributing regularly.

“I could get more money from the Quarterly,” he wrote to Miss Barker, “by one month’s employment than this volume (the second volume of ‘History of Brazil’) will produce me; but, on the other hand, this is for myself and posterity.”

On another occasion Southey wrote to his friend Bedford:—

“The more I consider the matter about emancipating myself from any engagement which subjects me to the control of an editor, the more I perceive and feel the fitness of so doing; and regarding it, as I ought to do, without any feeling of anger, I shall consult my own perfect convenience in the matter, and leave the Murraymagne to discover that I find other modes of composition more agreeable, if not more profitable.”

At that time Southey was occupied with ‘The Tale of Paraguay’ and ‘Oliver Newman,’ both of which are now forgotten.

Croker, Barrow, Dr. Whittaker, and Dr. Young were always to be depended upon, and they were not so particular as Southey in being controlled by the editor. Croker wrote to Murray:—

November 1st, 1812. Dear Murray,

I have now done my ‘Sketch of Brougham’; and as soon as I have got the whole in print I will endeavour to curtail and reduce into some kind of order, for Mr. Gifford’s final correction.

With respect to Croker’s article on Brougham, Gifford informed the publisher, “that at the suggestion of Mr. Canning, he proposes the postponement of the article on Brougham’s speech,” and it does not appear that it was ever published. In a subsequent letter to Mr. Murray he says:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“If we could do without such men as Southey and Mr. Ellis, perhaps it might be possible to act differently; but at any rate I prefer Mr. Canning to William Erskine. You are to consider that we have not hacks in pay like the Monthly and Critical Review, and that we are at least dealing with gentlemen. Spleen and ill-humour are out of place.”

Of Southey he said:—

“Southey’s prose is so good that everyone detects him. But take care how you confess it. Mum is always the safest word. When S. comes to town, let him do as he pleases.”

During the summer months, when the June number of the Quarterly was published, Gifford, as usual, went down to Ryde to regain his own health and look after his dying housekeeper.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. Ryde, July 12th, 1813.

“I have certainly gained something like health since I have been here, and I live all day long either on or by the water. Dr. Bell is here on a short visit, and contrived to find me out. He has been with me every day to take me out with some or other of his acquaintances; but as I positively came here to hide myself away, I have steadily refused to be known to any of them.”

July 29th, 1813.

“I have, as you conjecture, been touring—don’t make a mistake and read ‘towering,’ for my flights have been very humble, or rather none at all. The fact is, that I can do nothing here. Mr. Croker is very kind, and as we are both fond of sailing, we are much on the water together.”

In the following month he said that he was again suffering from a bad cough. Murray had sent him some present—what it was is not specified—to which Gifford replies:—

“You are too kind and munificent to me. I thank you very heartily, which is all you will allow me to do.”

While at Ryde Gifford received from Murray the news of the battle of Vittoria, and replied:—

“This seems to me the most important victory yet gained, and promises to free Spain. What a turn it would give to the affairs of the Allies if they could hear of it in time; but Buonaparte will be at least three weeks before them.” He added: “‘Coleman’ I see advertised. Would you have me try to get at Croker once more? If the book be worth reviewing he is the only person to do it, and I will write to him.”

Croker reviewed ‘Coleman’s Vagaries’ in the eighteenth number, which was due in July, but did not appear until six weeks later.

In January 1814 Gifford wrote to Murray:—

“In one of his letters Lord Sheffield talks of my visiting him. If his lordship would give me his estate, I could not venture on such a thing; nor can I increase my stock of acquaintance, as I never go out. Though I am better, yet I have not breath enough to walk out.”

After his usual visit to Ryde he returned to London in the autumn. We find him writing to Murray, then in Edinburgh:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

James Street, October 20th, 1814. My dear Sir,

What can I say in return for your interesting and amusing letter? I live here quite alone, and see nobody, so that I have not a word of news for you. I delight in your visit to Scotland, which I am sure would turn to good, and which I hope you will, as you say, periodically repeat. It makes me quite happy to find you beating up for recruits, and most ardently do I wish you success. Mention me kindly to Scott, and tell him how much I long to renew our wonted acquaintance. Southey’s article is, I think, excellent I have softened matters a little. Barrow is hard at work on Flinders [Q. R. 23]. I have still a most melancholy house. My poor housekeeper is going fast. Nothing can save her, and I lend all my care to soften her declining days. She has a physician every second day, and takes a world of medicines, more for their profit than her own, poor thing. She lives on fruit, grapes principally, and a little game, which is the only food she can digest. Guess at my expenses; but I owe in some measure the extension of my feeble life to her care through a long succession of years, and I would cheerfully divide my last farthing with her. I will not trouble you again on this subject, which is a mere concern of my own; but you have been very kind to her, and she is sensible of it.

With respect to this worthy woman, it may be added that she died on the 6th of February, 1815, carefully waited on to the last by her affectionate master. She was buried in South Audley Street Church, Grosvenor Square, where Gifford erected a tomb over her, and placed on it a very touching epitaph, concluding with these words: “Her deeply-affected master erected this stone to her memory, as a faithful testimony of her uncommon worth, and of his gratitude, respect, and affection for her long and meritorious services.”*

* See Gentleman’s Magazine, January 1816. Hazlitt published a cruel and libellous pamphlet in 1819, entitled ‘A Letter to William Gifford,’ in which he hinted that some improper connection had subsisted between himself and his “frail memorial.” Hazlitt wrote this pamphlet because of a criticism on the ‘Round Table’ in the Quarterly, which Gifford did not write, and of a criticism of Hunt’s ‘Rimini,’ published by Mr. Murray, which was also the work of another writer. But Gifford never took any notice of these libellous attacks upon him. He held that secrecy between himself and the contributors to the Quarterly was absolutely necessary. Hazlitt, in the above pamphlet, also attacks Murray, Croker, Canning, Southey, and others whom he supposed to be connected with the Review.

CHAPTER XII. MURRAY’S DRAWING-ROOM—BYRON AND SCOTT—WORKS PUBLISHED IN 1815.

During Mrs. Murray’s absence in Edinburgh, the dwelling-house at 50 Albemarle Street was made over to the carpenters, painters and house decorators. “I hope,” said Mr. Murray to his wife, “to leave the drawing-room entirely at your ladyship’s exclusive command.” But the drawing-room was used for other purposes than the reception of society callers. It became for some time the centre of literary friendship and intercommunication at the West End. In those days there was no Athenæum Club for the association of gentlemen known for their literary, artistic, or scientific attainments. That institution was only established in 1823, through the instrumentality of Croker, Lawrence, Chantrey, Sir Humphry Davy and their friends. Until then, Murray’s drawing-room was the main centre of literary intercourse in that quarter of London. Men of distinction, from the Continent and America, presented their letters of introduction to Mr. Murray, and were cordially and hospitably entertained by him; meeting, in the course of their visits, many distinguished and notable personages.

In these rooms, young George Ticknor, from Boston, in America, then only twenty-three, met Moore, Campbell, D’Israeli, Gifford, Humphry Davy, and others, early in 1815. He thus records his impressions of Gifford:—

“Among other persons, I brought letters to Gifford, the satirist, but never saw him till yesterday. Never was I so mistaken in my anticipations. Instead of a tall and handsome man, as I had supposed him from his picture—a man of severe and bitter remarks in conversation, such as I had good reason to believe him from his books, I found him a short, deformed, and ugly little man, with a large head sunk between his shoulders, and one of his eyes turned outward, but withal, one of the best-natured, most open and well-bred gentlemen I have ever met. He is editor of the Quarterly Review, and was not a little surprised and pleased to hear that it was reprinted with us, which I told him, with an indirect allusion to the review of ‘Inchiquen’s United States.’ . . . He carried me to a handsome room over Murray’s book-store, which he has fitted up as a sort of literary lounge, where authors resort to read newspapers, and talk literary gossip. I found there Elmsley, Hallam, Lord Byron’s ‘Classic Hallam, much renowned for Greek,’ now as famous as being one of his lordship’s friends, Boswell, a son of Johnson’s biographer, &c., so that I finished a long forenoon very pleasantly.”*

Croker and Barrow were both frequenters of the drawing-room, being constant contributors to and ardent supporters of the Quarterly. Croker had already made his mark in literature by his poem on ‘Talavera,’ which had gone to a ninth edition, and which, Mr. Murray informed him, “had been more successful than any poem that I know, exceeding in circulation Mr. Heber’s ‘Palestine’ or ‘Europe,’ or even Mr. Canning’s ‘Ulm’ and ‘Trafalgar.’” This was, however, before the appearance of Lord Byron’s poems. Scott wrote to Croker: “Many a heart has kindled at your ‘Talavera,’ which may be the more patriotic for the impulse as long as it shall last.” With respect to his contributions to the Quarterly, Croker, who was then in full work as Secretary to the Admiralty, wrote to Murray on sending his

* ‘Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor,’ i. p. 48.

review of Miss Edgeworth’s works: “Whatever you may think of my literary merits, if you could be aware of the circumstances of incessant and accablant business and fatigue in which I have written this review, you would at least thank me for my diligence and perseverance.”

Madame de Staël, who had been driven from Switzerland and France by the tyranny of Napoleon, was an occasional frequenter of Murray’s drawing-room. H. Crabb Robinson says in his Diary (i. 416):—

“I called this morning on Madame de Staël at 3 George Street, Hanover Square. It is singular that, having in Germany assisted her as a student of philosophy, I should now render her service as a lawyer. Murray, the bookseller, was with her, and I assisted at drawing up the agreement for her forthcoming work on Germany, for which she is to receive 1500 guineas.”

To one of his relatives, Murray wrote at the end of 1813:—

“I have lately ventured on the bold step of quitting the old establishment to which I have been so long attached, and have moved to one of the best, in every respect, that is known in my business, where I have succeeded in a manner the most complete and flattering. My house is excellent; and I transact all the departments of my business in an elegant library, which my drawing-room becomes during the morning; and there I am in the habit of seeing persons of the highest rank in literature and talent, such as Canning, Frere, Mackintosh, Southey, Campbell, Walter Scott, Madame de Staël, Gifford, Croker, Barrow, Lord Byron, and others; thus leading the most delightful life, with means of prosecuting my business with the highest honour and emolument.”

It was in Murray’s drawing-room that Walter Scott and Lord Byron first met. They had already had some friendly intercourse by letter and had exchanged gifts, but in the early part of 1815 Scott was summoned to London on matters connected with his works. Mr. Murray wrote to Lord Byron on the 7th of April:—

“Walter Scott has this moment arrived, and will call to-day between three and four, for the chance of having the pleasure of seeing you before he sets out for Scotland. I will show you a beautiful caricature of Buonaparte.”

Lord Byron called at the hour appointed, and was at once introduced to Mr. Scott, who was in waiting. They embraced each other in the most affectionate manner, and entered into a cordial conversation. How greatly Mr. Murray was gratified by a meeting which he had taken such pains to bring about, is shown by the following memorandum carefully preserved by him:—

“1815. Friday, April 7.—This day Lord Byron and Walter Scott met for the first time and were introduced by me to each other. They conversed together for nearly two hours. There were present, at different times, Mr. William Gifford, James Boswell (son of the biographer of Johnson), William Sotheby, Robert Wilmot, Richard Heber, and Mr. Dusgate.”

The present Mr. Murray—then John Murray, Junior—gives his recollections as follows:—

“I can recollect seeing Lord Byron in Albemarle Street. So far as I can remember, he appeared to me rather a short man, with a handsome countenance, remarkable for the fine blue veins which ran over his pale, marble temples. He wore many rings on his fingers, and a brooch in his shirt-front, which was embroidered. When he called, he used to be dressed in a black dress-coat (as we should now call it), with grey, and sometimes nankeen trousers, his shirt open at the neck. Lord Byron’s deformity in his foot was very evident, especially as he walked downstairs. He carried a stick. After Scott and he had ended their conversation in the drawing-room, it was a curious sight to see the two greatest poets of the age—both lame—stumping downstairs side by side. They continued to meet in Albemarle Street nearly every day, and remained together for two or three hours at a time. Lord Byron dined several times at Albemarle Street. On one of these occasions, he met Sir John Malcolm—a most agreeable and accomplished man—who was all the more interesting to Lord Byron, because of his intimate knowledge of Persia and India. After dinner, Sir John observed to Lord Byron, how much gratified he had been to meet him, and how surprised he was to find him so full of gaiety and entertaining conversation. Byron replied, ‘perhaps you see me now at my best.’ Sometimes, though not often, Lord Byron read passages from his poems to my father. His voice and manner were very impressive. His voice, in the deeper tones, bore some resemblance to that of Mrs. Siddons.”

About this time, Mr. Murray had a personal encounter with two thieves. While returning from Stoke Newington, across the fields, he was assailed by two ruffians, who knocked him down and robbed him of his money, but did not take his watch. His brother-in-law, Elliot, referred to this circumstance in a letter (June 27th, 1815).

“I was much alarmed by seeing in the newspapers that you had been knocked down and robbed of all your money (3s. 6d. in silver, and 4d. in copper coin). Fortunately, Annie’s (his sister) letter of the 16th arrived at same time, and informed me of your not having suffered much personal injury. The pecuniary loss will not ruin you. If you are always as moderate in your pocket-money, you will not be meddled with again.”*

* Lord Byron also wrote to Tom Moore of this robbery: “Murray,” he said, “has been cruelly cudgelled of misbegotten knaves, ‘in Kendal Green,’ at Newington, on his way home from a dinner, and robbed—would you believe it?—of three or four bonds of forty pounds a piece, and a seal ring of his grandfather’s, worth a million! This is his version,—but others affirm that D’Israeli, with whom he dined, knocked him down with his last publication, ‘The Quarrels of Authors,’ in a dispute about copyright. Be this as it may, the newspapers have teemed with his ‘injuria formæ,’ and he has been embrocated, and invisible to all but the apothecary ever since.”

Shortly before this first interview between Scott and Byron the news had arrived that Bonaparte had escaped from Elba, and landed at Cannes on the 1st of March, 1815. The French troops flocked to his standard, and Europe was again thrown into a state of excitement. Mr. Elliot continued, with reference to these events:

“We are all in a state of delirium about the news from Brabant. We look anxiously for the English news. The English Gazette is more relied on than any State papers in Europe. As yet, we have no minute particulars but from Holland. We have to-day accounts of Bonaparte having left the army for Paris. . . . From the imperfect accounts which we have, it is thought that the English army was surprised; as well as Blucher. You have no idea of the malignity with which this occasion is taken hold of, and how willingly it is supposed that the Duke of Brunswick fell a sacrifice to the errors of the others.”

When the news of the Battle of Waterloo reached London, Murray sent an account of it to his agent at Edinburgh. It was the first intelligence of the victory that Blackwood had received. In great triumph he showed Murray’s letter about, to Walter Scott among the rest; and then the Lord Provost confirmed the news.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. June 24th, 1815.

“The whole town is in an uproar, and all the bells have been set a-ringing. One can think of nothing else to-day. I met Walter Scott this forenoon, and read him your letter. He desired me to tell you that he hoped Mr. Hammond* was not in a strait-waistcoat. He said a great many kind things about you. Everything is fixed about my going to Princes Street.”

A few days before—indeed on the day the battle was fought—Blackwood gave great praise to the new

* Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, father of the late Lord Hammond.

number of the Quarterly, containing the contrast of Bonaparte and Wellington. It happened that Southey wrote the article in No. 25, on the ‘Life and Achievements of Lord Wellington,’ in order to influence public opinion as much as possible, and to encourage the hearts of men throughout the country for the great contest about to take place in the Low Countries. About the same time, Sir James Mackintosh had written an able and elaborate article for the Edinburgh, to show that the war ought to have been avoided, and that the consequences to England could only be unfortunate and inglorious. The number was actually printed, stitched, and ready for distribution in June; but it was thought better to wait a little, for fear of accidents, and especially for the purpose of using it instantly after the first reverse should occur, and thus to give it the force of prophecy. The Battle of Waterloo came like a thunderclap. The article was suppressed, and one on ‘Gall and his Craniology’ substituted. “I think,” says Ticknor, “Southey said he had seen the repudiated article.”*

Lord Byron did not write another ‘Ode on Napoleon.’ He was altogether disappointed in his expectations. Nevertheless, he still, like Hazlitt, admired Napoleon, and hated Wellington. When he heard of the result of the Battle of Waterloo, and that Bonaparte was in full retreat upon Paris, he said, “I’m d——d sorry for it!”

There were still meetings in Murray’s drawing-room, and literary banquets in Murray’s dining-room. On the 22nd of June, 1815, Ticknor was present at one of the dinners. He says:—

“I dined with Murray, and had a genuine bookseller’s dinner, such as Lintot used to give to Pope, and Gay and

* ‘Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor’ (2nd ed.) i. p. 41.

Swift, and Dilly to Johnson and Goldsmith. Those present were two Mr. Duncans, Fellows of New College, Oxford; D’Israeli, author of the ‘Quarrels and Calamities of Authors’; Gifford, and Campbell. The conversation of such a party could not be confined to politics, even on the day when they received full news of the Duke of Wellington’s successes; and, after they had drunk his health, and Blucher’s, they turned to literary topics as by instinct, and from seven o’clock until twelve the conversation never failed or altered. D’Israeli, who, I think, is no great favourite, though a very good-natured fellow, was rather the butt of the party. The two Duncans were acute and shrewd in correcting some mistakes in his books. Gifford sometimes defended him, but often joined in the laugh; and Campbell, whose spirits have lately been much improved by a legacy of £5000, was the life and wit of the party. He is a short, small man, and has one of the roundest and most lively faces I have seen amongst this grave people. His manners seemed as open as his countenance, and his conversation as spirited as his poetry. He could have kept us amused till morning; but midnight is the hour for separating, and the party broke up at once.”*

Mr. Murray, about this time, began to adorn his dining-room with portraits of the distinguished men who met at his table. His portraits include those of Gifford,† by Hoppner, R.A.; Byron and Southey, by Phillips; Scott and Washington Irving, by Stewart Newton; Croker, by Eddis, after Lawrence; Coleridge, Crabbe, Mrs. Somerville, Hallam, T. Moore, Lockhart and others. In April 1815 we find Thomas Phillips, afterwards R.A., in communication with Mr. Murray, offering to paint for him a series of Kit-cat size at eighty guineas each, and in course of time his pictures, together with those of John Jackson, R.A., formed a most interesting gallery of the great literary men of the time, men and women of science, essayists, critics,

* ‘Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor’ (2nd ed.) i. pp. 52-3.

† This portrait was not painted for Mr. Murray, but was purchased by him.

Arctic voyagers, and discoverers in the regions of Central Africa.

Byron and Southey were asked to sit for their portraits to Phillips. Though Byron was willing, and even thought it an honour, Southey pretended to grumble. To Miss Barker he wrote (9th November, 1815):—

“Here, in London, I can find time for nothing; and, to make things worse, the Devil, who owes me an old grudge, has made me sit to Phillips for a picture to Murray. I have in my time been tormented in this manner so often, and to such little purpose, that I am half tempted to suppose the Devil was the inventor of portrait painting.”

Meanwhile Mr. Murray was again in treaty for a share in a further work by Walter Scott. No sooner was the campaign of 1815 over, than a host of tourists visited France and the Low Countries, and amongst them Murray succeeded in making his long-intended trip to Paris, and Scott set out to visit the battlefields in Belgium. Before departing, Scott made an arrangement with John Ballantyne to publish the results of his travels, and he authorized him to offer the work to Murray, Constable, and the Longmans, in equal shares.

Mr. Ballantyne to John Murray. July 27th, 1815.

“Mr. Walter Scott has left town to-day for the Continent, and proposes writing from thence a series of letters to supposititious correspondents, varied in matter and style according to the persons supposed to be addressed. This work is to form a demy 8vo. volume of twenty-two sheets, to sell at 12s. It is to be immediately begun on his arrival in France, and to be published, if possible, in the second week of September, when he proposes to return. His first visit is to the field of Waterloo, viâ Brussels. We print 3000 of this, and I am empowered to offer you one-third of the edition, Messrs. Longman and Messrs. Constable having each the same share. The terms twelve months’ acceptance for paper and print in shipment, and half profits at six months, granted now, the bills payable to me. Mr. Scott only made up his mind to-day respecting this mode of disposal.”

Mr. Murray had already reached Paris, when Ballantyne’s letter arrived in Albemarle Street, but on his return he wrote to Ballantyne as follows:—

John Murray to Mr. Ballantyne. August 12th, 1815.

“I have just arrived from the Continent, and find your favour of the 27th ult., upon the subject of Mr. Walter Scott’s letters from the Continent. I have much pleasure in subscribing to the terms of your proposal for a third share of an edition, to consist of 3000 copies; and I now enclose my note, at six months from this date, of £150 accordingly, the receipt of which you can do me the favour to acknowledge at your leisure.”

Mr. Murray’s visit to Paris was of much interest. He set out with his friend, Mr. George Basevi, a nephew of Mr. D’Israeli, on the 14th of July, 1815, a month after the Battle of Waterloo. They reached Dover by coach, after a long and fatiguing journey. The packet was to sail on the following morning at eleven. The voyage was accomplished, with a favourable wind, in about two hours and a half, but the packet had to remain about two hours more outside the bar before it could enter Calais Harbour. At Calais, the companions hired a calèche on two wheels, with an apron of wood, and left for Paris on the following morning, making the journey by land in about three days.

Arrived at Paris, the travellers put up at the Hôtel des Étrangers, Rue Vivienne.

John Murray to Mrs. Murray. Paris, July 22nd, 1815.

“We employed ourselves yesterday in delivering our letters of introduction. The first of those to whom our letters were addressed, who happened to be at home, was a respectable merchant, a friend of Mr. Basevi. From him we first learnt the state of anxious feeling here. The military of all nations, including our own, are billeted upon individuals, and all except the English, and of course the French, behave with greater or less humanity or moderation. The Prussians have been particularly outrageous in their demands; pillaging, devastating and destroying in the provinces, wherever they came, all that they cannot use or take away, even to burning the houses and inhabitants upon whom they had lived. This is truly horrible, and much to be lamented where such retribution falls upon the innocent; but even these ought to consider justly the cause of it, and then their indignation and curses must fall, not upon the allies, but upon their own villanous army. It is most gratifying—however justly I think this nation is at length made to feel the misery they have spread over Europe—to find that the torch of retributive justice has not been consigned to the arms of the British. Respecting their conduct, there is but one universal sentiment of admiration; their forbearance has been exemplary indeed and equal to their courage, and extends to the most inferior private. The officers, this gentleman assured us, when quartered upon him, never would dine with him, though their right, nor yield to repeated solicitation, except once or twice to show their respect, and they have invariably conducted themselves, as he expressed it, ‘comme voyageurs.’ This feeling towards the English is truly gratifying to us in a foreign country at such a juncture. Buonaparte had built a bridge here—the finest in Paris—to commemorate his victory over the Prussians at Jena; this the Prussians, with some justice, absolutely swore they would blow up, and no entreaties could preserve it. The delicate ingenuity of Lord Wellington, however, saved it. He simply ordered one British soldier to walk backwards and forwards on the bridge as sentinel, and upon no account to quit it. The Prussians were confounded; they declared they could never destroy one English soldier. It is said, also, that the King, finding that nothing would move the determination of the Prussians, at length wrote to Blucher, saying that, as it must be so, he had only one favour to ask—that he would give him two hours’ notice before it took place, that he might be prepared to place himself upon it. The Prussians are literally execrated by the French.”

The visitors called upon Miss Helen Maria Williams, who afterwards wrote a book about France. They saw most of the sights of Paris; but the most important of these was a review of the British troops on the 24th of July, 1815. We quote Mr. Murray’s own words in his letter to Mrs. Murray:—

“This whole day, from 10 o’clock, we have been at a review of the British Army before Lord Wellington, the Emperors of Russia and Austria, and the King of Prussia. The troops were five hours in passing, and are computed at 70,000 men, including Hanoverians, &c.—all that formed Lord Wellington’s army. It will operate very usefully, I can see, upon this flighty and ignorant people, from the conversations I took care to place myself in the way of overhearing. They were, however, most completely astonished by the appearance of our cavalry; they had not previously any idea of them, really believing them to be contemptible. Hundreds around were vociferating sacré dieu; some of them said that they had been told that Paris had been delivered to us by the treason of Fouche, but now they saw the true cause. It was indeed a gratifying and triumphant sight for an Englishman. Our men are all such truly respectable fine fellows. The Duke had his carriage there with two ladies.

“I must now conclude hastily, as the carriage is come to take us to dinner. We know nothing whatsoever of politics here, nor do the Parisians yet know if Buonaparte be really taken.

“This will be carried by Capt. Herd, who is to put it into the Post Office.”

The remainder of the visit passed off very pleasantly. Basevi revelled in the statues and pictures in the Louvre, and wished to study them more. The collection contained the finest pictures in the world—which Napoleon had brought from Italy, Germany, and Holland—as well as the principal statues, included the Venus de Medici, the Laocoon, the Apollo Belvedere, and others, which were soon to be returned to the galleries from which they had been taken. To oblige Basevi, Murray consented to stay a few days longer, during which time he delivered some letters of introduction from Sir James Mackintosh, all of which proved exceedingly valuable and interesting.

John Murray to Mrs. Murray.

“We had a long conversation with Suard, the friend of Gibbon, a sensible and communicative, now old man, worn down by the horrors of the revolution, and by no means enlivened by the conduct of the allies, for the Prussians everywhere commit horrible depredations. We then saw Sismondi, who appears to have been completely fascinated by Carnot and Buonaparte, of whom he yet speaks with enthusiasm, though even he confesses that he was not since his return, by any means, the man of genius that he had been,—that he became lethargic, and that, when his councillors went to confer with him, they constantly found him asleep over some book. We then had an interview with Gérard, the most eminent painter here, with whose gallery and conversation we were much entertained, but I most particularly with the latter, in which I have since learnt he is allowed to excel. He was more rational in his politics and feelings, and blamed the French army as the just cause of all the present sufferings from the vengeance of some of the allies. From him we went to Benjamin Constant, the friend of Madame de Staël, a man who had lived in unceasing hatred of Buonaparte, but who unfortunately allowed himself to be seduced by the last change, and was employed by Carnot in framing the constitution. He is now the ridicule of all. He was, however, in pretty good spirits, and received us very kindly; we could not expect much politics from him, though he expressed a hope that the plague might carry off the allies.”

After other visits—to Baron Humboldt amongst them—and several excursions in the neighbourhood of Paris—to Versailles, to Malmaison, the favourite residence of Josephine, and to St. Cloud—the pair of travellers set out from Paris to Dieppe on the 5th of August They reached Dieppe after an exhausting journey by diligence, and embarked for Newhaven. The voyage across the Channel at that time occupied more than eighteen hours. Before returning to London they visited Mr. Isaac D’Israeli, who had been ill, and told him all the news of their pleasant excursions in and about Paris.

In the meantime Ballantyne, who was printing Scott’s ‘Paul’s Letters to his Kinsfolk,’ wrote to Murray that, instead of 3000 copies, double the number, or 6000, had been thrown off, and requesting Murray to send him the bill for the additional amount, dated three months back, which was at once complied with.

Notwithstanding the commercial distress which prevailed during the early part of 1815, Mr. Murray continued increasingly busy in the publication of new works. He again undertook the publication of ‘Mungo Park’s Travels,’ though a portion of the work had been published by the African Institution in Lincoln’s Inn. Mr. Whishaw, in acknowledging the receipt from Mr. Murray of £400 for the copyright of the journals, added that “Sir Joseph Banks is much pleased with your conduct in waiving the objection arising from the publication of ‘Isaaco’s Journal,’ and has looked out some other papers which may be useful for our purpose.”

In a subsequent letter to Mr. Murray, Thomas Harrison, Secretary to the African Institution, says:—

“I have again the satisfaction of expressing to you the high sense which the Board cannot but feel at another instance of your liberal conduct respecting the family of the late Mungo Park, which I had the pleasure of reporting to them this morning.”

And Adam Park (Mungo’s brother), then living at Gravesend, in acknowledging the receipt of the book, wrote (29th September, 1815):—

“The rapid sale of the first edition encourages me to hope that your candour and liberality towards the interests of my late brother’s family will meet a commensurate reward from a generous public.”

Among the other miscellaneous works published this year was the ‘Paradise of Coquettes,’ originally issued anonymously, but now acknowledged to be by Dr. Thomas Brown, Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, author of the ‘Philosophy of the Human Mind.’ The ‘Paradise of Coquettes’ excited a good deal of interest, one of the ablest critics declaring it to be “by far the best and most brilliant imitation of Pope that has appeared since the time of that great writer.” J. H. Merivale also published through Mr. Murray his ‘Orlando in Roncesvalles’—an imitation, or rather an abridgment, of a part of the ‘Morgante Maggiore.’ Mr. Murray’s list included also Sir R. C. Hoare’s ‘Antiquities of Wiltshire,’ Lord Woodhouselee’s ‘Elements of History’ (being the text-book of his course as Professor of Universal History in the Edinburgh University), Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s ‘Letters,’ and Hamilton’s ‘East India Gazetteer,’ a work amassed and digested with singular industry, and containing a vast treasury of information. Lord Sheffield, in sending the publisher the receipt for £1000 for the copyright of Gibbon’s miscellaneous works—which have already been referred to—wrote, “I have had more satisfaction in treating with you than with any other bookseller with whom I have had dealings.”

In 1815 a very remarkable collection of documents was offered to Mr. Murray for purchase and publication. They were in the possession of one of Napoleon’s generals, a friend of Miss Waldie.* The collection consisted of the personal correspondence of Bonaparte, when in the height of his power, with all the crowned heads and leading personages of Europe, upon subjects so strictly confidential that they had not even been communicated to their own ministers or private secretaries. They were consequently all written by their own hands.

As regards the contents of these letters, Mr. Murray had to depend upon his memory, after making a hurried perusal of them. He was not allowed to copy any of them, but merely took a rough list. No record was kept of the dates. Among them was a letter from the King of Bavaria, urging his claims as a true and faithful ally, and claiming for his reward the dominion of Würtemberg.

There were several letters from the Prussian Royal family, including one from the King, insinuating that by the cession of Hanover to him his territorial frontier would be rendered more secure. The Emperor Paul, in a letter written on a small scrap of paper, proposed to transfer his whole army to Napoleon, to be employed in turning the English out of India, provided he would prevent them passing the Gut and enclosing the Baltic.

The Empress of Austria wrote an apology for the

* Afterwards Mrs. Eaton, author of ‘Letters from Italy.’

uncultivated state of mind of her daughter, Marie Louise, about to become Napoleon’s bride; but added that her imperfect education presented the advantage of allowing Napoleon to mould her opinions and principles in accordance with his own views and wishes.

This correspondence would probably have met with an immense sale, but Mr. Murray entertained doubts as to the propriety of publishing documents so confidential, and declined to purchase them for the sum proposed. The next day, after his refusal, he ascertained that Prince Lieven had given, on behalf of his government, not less than £10,000 for the letters emanating from the Court of Russia alone. Thus the public missed the perusal of an important series of international scandals.

Towards the end of the same year, Miss H. M. Williams published, through Mr. Murray, her ‘Narrative of Events in France in 1815.’ While expressing her pleasure at his consenting to bring out the work, she added, “for my part I accuse myself of having spared the tyrant (Bonaparte) too much.” Mr. Murray sent a copy of the book to his friend Isaac D’Israeli, who wrote in reply:—

Mr D’Israeli to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

I have just finished Miss Williams’s narrative, and the result is so very different from what I expected, that I can’t refrain from telling you that I consider it a capital work, written with great skill, talent, and care; full of curious and new developments, and some facts which we did not know before. There breathes through the whole a most attractive spirit, and her feelings sometimes break out in the most beautiful effusions. This narrative is not a book made up for the occasion, but will enter the historical list; and it must be popular, as it is the most entertaining imaginable; one of those books one does not like to quit before finishing it. I cannot tell whether she writes for a particular purpose, but she writes well. Time has sobered her volatile nonsense, while near thirty years ago she wrote novels and middling poetry. It is true she writes now with very different feelings, but that does not prove that the present are not genuine. She has turned her petti-coat, for ladies have no other coats to turn; but if she has discovered that the former side was both dirty and faded, the present one is not the less decent for that.

I write this because I can’t get conveniently to you, and further, that you never spoke to me in the highest commendation of the book. It is one of the very best we have long had.

In haste, yours, I. D’I.

Benjamin Constant wrote to Murray from Brussels, offering him for publication a work dealing with the History of the Government of France, from the return of the Royal family to the day on which the book was printed. “The period I mean to describe,” said Constant, “is better known to me than to most men in Europe, and my name will perhaps be of some interest, as a witness or an actor in the last events.” He referred Mr. Murray to Sir James Mackintosh—a friend of both—but the work does not seem to have been published—at least in English.

Some of the obscure authors who applied to Mr. Murray were exorbitant in their ideas of remuneration, but this was not the case with Miss Jane Austen, one of the most modest of authoresses. Her first novel was ‘Northanger Abbey.’ It remained long in manuscript, and eventually she succeeded in selling it to a bookseller at Bath for £10. He had not the courage to publish it, and after it had remained in his possession for some years, Miss Austen bought it back for the same money he had paid for it. She next wrote ‘Sense and Sensibility,’ and ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ The latter book was summarily rejected by Mr. Cadell. At length these two books were published anonymously by Mr. Egerton, and though they did not make a sensation, they gradually attracted attention, and obtained admirers. No one could be more surprised than the authoress, who received no less than £150 from the profits of her first published work—‘Sense and Sensibility.’

When Miss Austen had finished ‘Emma,’ she put herself in communication with Mr. Murray, who read her ‘Pride and Prejudice,’ and sent it to Gifford. Gifford replied as follows:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“I have for the first time looked into ‘Pride and Prejudice;’ and it is really a very pretty thing. No dark passages; no secret chambers; no wind-howlings in long galleries; no drops of blood upon a rusty dagger—things that should now be left to ladies’ maids and sentimental washerwomen.”

In a later letter he said:—

September 29th, 1815.

“I have read ‘Pride and Prejudice’ again—’tis very good—wretchedly printed, and so pointed as to be almost unintelligible. Make no apology for sending me anything to read or revise. I am always happy to do either, in the thought that it may be useful to you.” * * * * *

“Of ‘Emma,’ I have nothing but good to say. I was sure of the writer before you mentioned her. The MS., though plainly written, has yet some, indeed many little omissions; and an expression may now and then be amended in passing through the press. I will readily undertake the revision.”

‘Emma’ was accordingly published in December 1815. By request of Miss Austen, Mr. Murray sent a copy to the Prince Regent, who had granted the authoress permission to dedicate the work to his Royal Highness. Miss Austen’s two other novels, ‘Northanger Abbey,’ and ‘Persuasion’ were also published by Murray, but did not appear until after her death in 1818. The profits of the four novels which had been published before her death did not amount to more than seven hundred pounds.

At the time when Lord Byron’s poems and Miss Austen’s novels were published, Mr. Murray was inundated with poems and novels from all parts of the country. Some of the poets wished to have “the honour of the name of Lord Byron’s publisher on the title-page,” while one of them, a lady of Cirencester, applied to him for “his celebrity and acknowledged liberality.” Manuscripts without end came to hand; in the haste of business they were sometimes overlooked; and indignant letters arrived demanding their return. The poems and novels were for the most part declined.

Mr. Murray also began to publish the works of Mr. Malthus on ‘Rent,’ the ‘Corn Laws,’ and the ‘Essay on Population.’ His pamphlet on Rent appeared in March 1815. Writing to Mr. Murray, he says:—

Mr. Malthus to John Murray.

“I am fully persuaded that all the trading classes, not immediately connected with foreign commerce, will feel very severely the loss of home demand, and the increased pressure of taxation occasioned by the fall in the price of corn; but if the nation is almost unanimous against restrictions, I fear that the passing of the Act under such circumstances will be a perpetually reviving cause of discontent.”

Number 24 of the Review pleased Gifford very much. In writing to Murray on the subject, he said:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. Jan. 27th, 1815.

“I will beg you to get a work for Mr. Lyall. His article, which I have looked at again, is truly excellent*—but you must never venture into Scotland again without a coat of mail and a blunderbuss. Seriously, the sterling, manly sense of the Review pleases me very much, indeed.”

The Rev. P. Elmsley, vicar of St. Mary Cray—a contributor to the Quarterly—was not so well pleased as Gifford.

Rev. P. Elmsley to John Murray.

“I think you have not been very brilliant of late. I must say that there is as great a difference between Jeffrey’s best papers and your politics as between Handel and his bellows-blower. If this comparison does not please you, you may erase Handel and the bellows-blower, and read Burke and Junius, or Milton and Blackmore. . . . Is there not too much of the dry rot? Barrow ought not to ride you so unmercifully.”†

Referring to the previous number, Mr. Elmsley said:—

“I want to know, what I don’t expect you to tell me, who did the ‘Paradise of Coquettes?’‡ Is it not the same hand which did ‘Brand’s Popular Antiquities’ in the last number but one.§ I should be sorry to have my brain so full of cobwebs as that gentleman’s, be he who he may. Then, your politician, who talks about that ‘enemy to Europe, the King of Saxony,’ is a most useful performer. I wish he would take to some other subject, for, as to politics, he is hardly superior to a newspaper editor. I

* Archdeacon Lyall’s article was a review of Stewart’s ‘Philosophy of the Human Mind.’

† Numbers 15, 19, and 23, had each contained an article on timber and shipbuilding, by John Barrow. Number 59 (in 1824) contained another article by him, exclusively on “Naval Dry Rot.”

‡ It was written by F. Cohen (afterwards Sir F. Palgrave).

§ Mr. Elmsley was right in his conjecture.

have been in the habit of attributing these essays to Reginald Heber, who has the common infirmity of clever men, of thinking himself able to write on subjects that he has never studied.”

It will thus be seen that Murray had no want of severe critics on his own staff. The next number (25) which was better, contained an article by a new and distinguished contributor, Henry Hallam.

In May 1815 Southey sent to Murray an article for the Quarterly written by a friend. Murray read it, but did not like it. He then sent it to Gifford, who wrote to him as follows:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“The great difficulty with me is Southey. He entertains a very high opinion of his friend’s talents, as he showed by employing him, and he has seen and approved the critique. No great proof of his own modesty, you will say, and I agree with you. But he is after all the sheet anchor of the Review, and should not be lightly hurt. Grosvenor Bedford’s influence with him is so great that he can mould him as he pleases. I do think, however, that some little good may be done by a few omissions towards the conclusion. . . . I think you might have spent the day more cheerfully than in going so many miles to eat up a poor poet’s Sunday dinner. But perhaps you took a basket with you.”

Murray sent Scott a copy of Mountstuart Elphinstone’s ‘Cabul,’ which is referred to in the course of the following letter. The first part of the communication refers to the ‘Lord of the Isles’ and the ‘Antiquary,’ which had recently made their appearance. It had been suggested in a letter from Scott to Ballantyne, that the latter work should be offered to Murray and Blackwood, in the event of Constable and the Longmans not accepting the terms; but Constable held to the work, and, in conjunction with the Longmans, granted bills for £1500, and relieved Ballantyne of stock to the amount of £500. Therefore, the suggested arrangement with Murray and Blackwood fell through. The rest of Murray’s letter to Scott was as follows:—

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

Nov. 8th, 1815.

I trust it will not be necessary to give yourself any thought again of what will be agreeable to me with regard to any publication of yours, for what you desire will be completely satisfactory to me. As to the enlargement of the edition of ‘Paul’s Letters’ to 6000, I can only assure you that, in my opinion, such an impression will be sold in a fortnight.

I sent you also a copy of a valuable work by Mountstuart Elphinstone on the ‘Kingdom of Cabul,’ which will, I think, interest you; and to-day I have enclosed in a mail packet to Blackwood a copy of Helen Maria Williams’s account of the ‘Events in France,” which is to be published here to-morrow, and which you will be curious, at any rate, to see. I have added the addenda to ‘Park,’ and sent with it the ‘Travels,’ complete in 2 vols., 8vo., which I shall not publish till the end of the year, and which, therefore, I do not wish to be much seen.

Southey arrived last week from his travels, in great health and spirits. He would not go near Paris. He says that if Paris is not burnt to the ground, then the two cities that we read of in Scripture have been very ill used. He was very sorry that he missed seeing you in London. Lord Byron is perfectly well, and is in better dancing spirits than I ever knew him, expecting every day a son and heir. Mr. Hammond continues the same, and all talk of you repeatedly. Southey is sitting to Phillips for me, and I now want Crabbe, to whom I would beg the favour of a line at your leisure. Mr. Ward has just returned from Italy, and Rogers from a recent trip, to take a farewell view of the statues. Sotheby is recovering from the loss of his son in the bustle attending the preparation for ‘Ivan,’ which is to be performed at Drury Lane early in the year. Sir H. Davy read his Paper to-day at the Royal Society, on his most valuable discovery of the means of preventing the fatal accidents in collieries from inflammable air. Canova is in London. Sir James Mackintosh has given up his house in town, and retired to Buckinghamshire to complete his ‘History.’ Campbell is carrying fast through the press his ‘Selections of Poetry,’ with original lives and criticisms, which are written with great simplicity and interest. Mr. Gifford is very well, and will be even better if you can find time to think of him. However, we both are aware that you are not idle; and we hope, if you have a spare moment, that you will dash us out something. I have a great many interesting works in the press. I will take care to remember you to your friends; and if I can be in any way useful to you in London, I hope you will not fail to command my services.

I remain, dear Sir, Yours very sincerely, John Murray .

The following, which may be regarded as a continuation of the previous letter from Murray to Scott, may also be given.

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

December 25th, 1815. Dear Sir,

I was on the point of writing to you, when I received Mr. Blackwood’s letter. Elphinstone’s ‘Cabul’ has been, since the day of publication, in the hands of Mr. Barrow, whose article upon it is in progress, and will appear in our next number. I hope, therefore, that Lord Meadowbank will not feel disappointed; but allow us to hope for the favour of his valuable assistance on some other work, in which we would prefer to anticipate, rather than to follow the Edinburgh Review. I was about to tell you that Croker was so pleased with the idea of a Caledonian article from you, that he could not refrain from mentioning it to the Prince Regent, who is very fond of the subject, and he said he would be delighted, and is really anxious about it. Now, it occurs to me, as our Edinburgh friends choose on many occasions to bring in the Prince’s name to abuse it, this might offer an equally fair opportunity of giving him that praise which is so justly due to his knowledge of the history of his country. We expect to publish our next number in the last week in January next. Eight sheets are already printed, and we will reserve the last place d’honneur for you.

I was with Lord Byron yesterday. He enquired after you, and bid me say how much he was indebted to your introduction of your poor Irish friend Maturin, who had sent him a tragedy, which Lord Byron received late in the evening, and read through, without being able to stop. He was so delighted with it that he sent it immediately to his fellow-manager, the Hon. George Lamb, who, late as it came to him, could not go to bed without finishing it The result is that they have laid it before the rest of the Committee; they, or rather Lord Byron, feels it his duty to the author to offer it himself to the managers of Covent Garden. The poor fellow says in his letter that his hope of subsistence for his family for the next year rests upon what he can get for this play. I expressed a desire of doing something, and Lord Byron then confessed that he had sent him fifty guineas. I shall write to him to-morrow, and I think if you could draw some case for him and exhibit his merits, particularly if his play succeeds, I could induce Croker and Peel to interest themselves in his behalf, and get him a living.

Your interesting letter respecting poor Park’s family is at present with Whishaw, who desires me to assure you that he will try all his means to effect your benevolent object; though the chances of at least immediate success are lessened at this time by the complete derangement of all our landholders. You will have noticed, perhaps, in the Gazette, the appointment of our friend Hammond as one of the Commissioners for arranging the claims of the British in France; and he sets out for Paris in a fortnight, so that I lose my chief 4 o’clock man. Have you any fancy to dash off an article on ‘Emma’? It wants incident and romance, does it not? None of the author’s other novels have been noticed, and surely ‘Pride and Prejudice’ merits high commendation.

Yours ever faithfully, John Murray .

Scott immediately complied with Murray’s request. He did “dash off an article on ‘Emma,’” which appeared in No. 27 of the Quarterly. In enclosing his article to Murray, Scott wrote as follows:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

January 19th, 1816. Dear Sir,

Enclosed is the article upon ‘Emma.’ I have been spending my holidays in the country, where, besides constant labour in the fields during all the hours of daylight, the want of books has prevented my completing the Highland article. [The ‘Culloden Papers,’ which appeared in next number.] It will be off, however, by Tuesday’s post, as I must take Sunday and Monday into the account of finishing it. It will be quite unnecessary to send proofs of ‘Emma,’ as Mr. Gifford will correct all obvious errors, and abridge it where necessary. I have obtained a promise of a provision for poor Archie Park; pray say so, with my best respects to Mr. Whishaw. I have sent a commission to Wurz and Treuttel to procure me the Benedictine edition of the French Historians.* If they should advise you that they have succeeded, and draw upon you for the price, please advise me, that I may put you in funds. I desired them to draw upon you at a month’s sight. I wrote Lord Byron a few days since. But I must to the Highlands in great haste, so this is all at present from

Yours truly, W. Scott .

January 25th, 1816.

My article is so long that I fancy you will think yourself in the condition of the conjuror, who after having a great deal of trouble in raising the devil, could not get rid of him after he had once made his appearance. But the Highlands is an immense field, and it would have been much more easy for me to have made a sketch twice as long than to

* This was no doubt the source whence Scott drew his novel of ‘Quentin Durward.’

make it shorter. There still wants eight or nine pages, which you will receive by to-morrow’s or next day’s post; but I fancy you will be glad to get on. I sent you a few days since the article on ‘Emma.’ Inclosed is a letter from Mrs. Scott to her friends in Whitehorse Street,* which I beg you will have the goodness to forward.

Yours truly, W. Scott. .

“Elphinstone’s book is by far the most interesting of the kind I have ever read.”

The article on the ‘Culloden Papers,’ which occupied fifty pages of the Review (No. 28), described the clans of the Highlands their number, manners, and habits; and gave a summary history of the Rebellion of ’45. It was graphically and vigorously written, and is considered one of Scott’s best essays. The other review, of ‘Fair Isabel of Cothele,’ was only three pages in length. The writer presumed that the MS. of the poem had been enclosed in a bureau of Walter Scott, and hence the great likeness between it and ‘The Lady of the Lake.’ It might also have been closeted with the papers of Lord Byron, and hence its resemblance to his Lordship’s works.

Two other letters from Mr. Scott to Murray may be given, as they relate to articles in the Review.

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

October 10th, 1815. (?) Dear Sir,

After carefully looking over the series of novels, which I re-inclose, I find I can make nothing of them. The canvas is, in fact, too narrow for so extensive a subject. I have written to Mr. Gifford, wishing to review Polwhele’s works [‘Fair Isabel of Cothele’] or the ‘Theatrical

* The Dumerques, with whom Sir Walter generally resided during his visits to London.

Row.’ The last has never, I think, been attempted, at least in a general point of view, and might, I think, be made a pleasing and original article. Should Mr. G. approve, you will be so good as to send me such of the trashy publications concerning it as may be most current. I must have a text, though the sermon will rather refer to the thing itself than the publications concerning it. I will be happy to look over the article on Crabbe should Mr. G. wish it, but it is always difficult (I find it so at least) to do much in the way of addition or emendation unless the general colouring and style should agree more than is likely.

I have written a long letter to Gifford on all these matters. I am greatly obliged to you for settling with my newspaper man, which, I suppose, will square accounts between us for my two little articles in last number.

I am, dear Sir, yours very truly, Walter Scott .

The other letter is as follows [no date, but supposed to be Edinburgh, 1816]:—

My dear Sir,

I am glad you like the article. With all my exertions I have not got through the corrections to save this post, and I wish to avail myself of the admirable letters of Croker and Malcolm to mend the reflections on Waterloo. Tomorrow is no post, but you will have the remaining sheets by the first post, sans faute . I am writing during a long and confused pleading.

Yours truly, Walter Scott .

From these letters it will be observed how diligently Mr. Scott was helping onward the progress of the Quarterly.

CHAPTER XIII. CHARLES MATURIN—S. T. COLERIDGE—LEIGH HUNT—MADAME DE STAËL—MRS. GRAHAM.

Scott’s “poor Irish friend, Maturin,” referred to in the previous chapter, was a young Irish clergyman, who was under the necessity of depending upon his brains and pen for the maintenance of his family. Charles Maturin, after completing his course of education at Trinity College, married Miss Harriet Kinsburg. His family grew, but not his income. He took orders, and obtained the curacy of St. Peter’s Church, Dublin, but owing to his father’s affairs having become embarrassed, he was compelled to open a boarding-school, with the view of assisting the family. Unfortunately, he became bound for a friend, who deceived him, and eventually he was obliged to sacrifice his interest in the school. Being thus driven to extremities, he tried to live by literature, and produced ‘The Fatal Revenge; or, the Family of Montorio,’ the first of a series of romances, in which he outdid Mrs. Radcliffe and Monk Lewis. ‘The Fatal Revenge’ was followed by ‘The Wild Irish Boy,’ for which Colburn gave him £80, and ‘The Milesian Chief,’ all full of horrors and misty grandeur. These works did not bring him in much money; but, in 1815, he determined to win the height of dramatic fame in his ‘Bertram; or, the Castle of St. Aldebrand,’ a tragedy. He submitted the drama to Walter Scott, as from an “obscure Irishman,” telling him of his sufferings as an author and the father of a family, and imploring his kind opinion. Scott replied in the most friendly manner, gave him much good advice, spoke of the work as “grand and powerful, the characters being sketched with masterly enthusiasm;” and, what was practically better, sent him £50 as a token of his esteem and sympathy, and as a temporary stop-gap until better times came round. He moreover called the attention of Lord Byron, then on the Committee of Management of Drury Lane Theatre, to the play, and his Lordship strongly recommended a performance of it. Thanks to the splendid acting of Kean, it succeeded, and Maturin realized about £1000.

Lord Byron, when referring to Maturin, says:—“He sent his ‘Bertram’ and a letter without his address, so that at first I could give him no answer. When I at last hit upon his residence, I sent him a favourable answer, and something more substantial. The play succeeded, but I was at that time absent from England.”

‘Bertram’ was published by Murray, a circumstance which brought him into frequent communication with the unfortunate Maturin. The latter offered more plays, more novels, and many articles for the Quarterly. With reference to one of his articles—a review of Sheil’s ‘Apostate’—Gifford said, “a more potatoe-headed arrangement, or rather derangement, I have never seen. I have endeavoured to bring some order out of the chaos. There is a sort of wild eloquence in it that makes it worth preserving.”

Maturin acknowledged Murray’s kindness in sending him some books which he desired to read, and after referring to his novel of ‘Montorio’ and his play of ‘Bertram,’ he concluded:—

The Rev. C. Maturin to John Murray.

Dublin, June 22nd, 1816.

I am in horrid dejection; every shilling that I draw from England goes to pay the debts of that scoundrel to whom I don’t owe a farthing, and from whom I shall never receive one. My dear Murray, I must write to you more confidentially. I am given to understand, from all sides, that I have not been so well treated as I ought in another quarter. I know not how to act; at all events, Volto sciolto, i pensieri stretti must be my motto for the present. I am in such a wretched state of lassitude and depression that I have been some hours writing these few lines, pausing over every sentence to know whether it had any meaning, and doubting whether I was capable of giving it any. However, I have still some gratitude left, to send my best respects to Mrs. Murray, and to assure you that to your friendly and hospitable attention I am indebted for the only pleasant hours passed during my sojourn in London.

Yours, my dear Murray, most truly, Charles Robert Maturin .

Should you think of answering this incoherent scrawl, let me know if ‘Bertram’ keeps any hold of the public still, as I see Kean is announced in his former characters.

Two months later Maturin wrote:—

The Rev. C. Maturin to John Murray.

August 19th, 1816.

From your letter I judge that you do not wish me to produce anything till after the appearance of my next tragedy. I perfectly agree with you, but entre nous I labour under most serious difficulties in the composition. I have not a single friend to consult, no books, no excitement of any description, and you know not what nonsense a man may write who has only his own imagination to prompt, and his own ear to please. The state of the public mind, too, is unfavourable; the nation is out of humour with the Peace, and the marriage, and the taxes make the success of a work of imagination more problematical than ever. There is not a more fearful wild-fowl than your ‘English’ lion living, when once his rage is roused. However, I am, as all authors should be, doing my best and thinking my worst; and, to confess the truth, what I have written pleases me better than ‘Bertram.’ I am infinitely obliged by your having the goodness to assure me that the impression I made was favourable, but I confess I want all the evidence of your testimony to prove it. I went over, not expecting much, and came back receiving nothing, not even common civility, which in certain quarters I surely was entitled to as an invited stranger. But let that go to the Tomb of all the Capulets. Let me beg of you to write to me. I cannot describe to you the effect of an English letter on my spirits; it is like the wind to an Æolian harp. I cannot produce a note without it. Give me advice, abuse, news, anything, or nothing (if it were possible that you could write nothing), but write. Send me an account of your tour, and I will give you in return the ‘Journal of an Irish Lodging House,’ where I have been murdering the summer, and I can promise the balance will not leave me in your debt for the miseries of excursions. With best respects to Mrs. Murray,

Believe me, yours most truly, C. Rob. Maturin .

Maturin continued to press his literary work on Murray, who however, though he relieved him by the gift of several large sums of money, declined all further offers of publication save the tragedy of ‘Manuel,’ which he undertook as a charity. Lord Byron also continued to take an interest in him, and in answer to enquiries received the following information from Mr. Murray:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

March 15th, 1817.

Maturin’s new tragedy, ‘Manuel,’ appeared on Saturday last, and I am sorry to say that the opinion of Mr. Gifford was established by the impression made on the audience. The first act very fine, the rest exhibiting a want of judgment not to be endured. It was brought out with uncommon splendour, and was well acted. Kean’s character as an old man—a warrior—was new and well sustained, for he had, of course, selected it, and professed to be—and he acted as if he were—really pleased with it. But this feeling changed to dislike after the first night, for he then abused it, and has actually walked through the part ever since, that is to say, for the other three nights of performance, for they do not act on Wednesdays or Fridays, and this night the performance is changed to ‘Lovers’ Vows.’ I met Geo. Lamb on Tuesday, and he complained bitterly of Kean’s conduct, said that he had ruined the success of the tragedy, and that in consequence he feared Maturin would receive nothing. The expense to the managers must have been very great, and it will complete, I suspect, the ruin of Drury under its present directorship, and so I rejoice that your name appears not amongst them. I send you the first act, that you may see the best of it. I have undertaken to print the tragedy at my own expense, and to give the poor Author the whole of the profit.

In 1824 poor Maturin died, in Dublin, in extreme poverty. The leniency and kindness extended to him by Byron and Scott was not shared by Coleridge, who, in his ‘Biographia Litteraria,’ uses the most severe and uncompromising language against ‘Bertram.’

The mention of the name of Coleridge, who was in frequent correspondence with Mr. Murray about this time (1816), induces us to revert to an earlier date to record the origin of their association.

It is not improbable that it was Southey who suggested to Murray the employment of his brother-in-law, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, from his thorough knowledge of German, as the translator of Goethe’s ‘Faust.’ The application came to him in a roundabout manner. The following is Mr. Coleridge’s first letter to Murray:—

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

Josiah Wade’s, Esq., 2, Queen’s Square, Bristol. August 23rd, 1814. Dear Sir,

I have heard, from my friend Mr. Charles Lamb, writing by desire of Mr. Robinson, that you wish to have the justly-celebrated ‘Faust’ of Goethe translated, and that some one or other of my partial friends have induced you to consider me as the man most likely to execute the work adequately, those excepted, of course, whose higher power (established by the solid and satisfactory ordeal of the wide and rapid sale of their works) it might seem profanation to employ in any other manner than in the development of their own intellectual organization. I return my thanks to the recommender, whoever he be, and no less to you for your flattering faith in the recommendation; and thinking, as I do, that among many volumes of praiseworthy German poems, the ‘Louisa’ of Voss, and the ‘Faust’ of Goethe, are the two, if not the only ones, that are emphatically original in their conception, and characteristic of a new and peculiar sort of thinking and imagining, I should not be averse from exerting my best efforts in an attempt to import whatever is importable of either or of both into our own language.

But let me not be suspected of a presumption of which I am not consciously guilty, if I say that I feel two difficulties; one arising from long disuse of versification, added to what I know, better than the most hostile critic could inform me, of my comparative weakness; and the other, that any work in Poetry strikes me with more than common awe, as proposed for realization by myself, because from long habits of meditation on language, as the symbolic medium of the connection of Thought with Thought, and of Thought as affected and modified by Passion and Emotion, I should spend days in avoiding what I deemed faults, though with the full fore-knowledge that their admission would not have offended perhaps three of all my readers, and might be deemed Beauties by 300—if so many there were; and this not out of any respect for the Public (i.e., the persons who might happen to purchase and look over the Book), but from a hobby-horsical, superstitious regard to my own feelings and sense of Duty. Language is the sacred Fire in this Temple of Humanity, and the Muses are its especial and vestal Priestesses. Though I cannot prevent the vile drugs and counterfeit Frankincense, which render its flame at once pitchy, glowing, and unsteady, I would yet be no voluntary accomplice in the Sacrilege. With the commencement of a Public, commences the degradation of the Good and the Beautiful—both fade and retire before the accidentally Agreeable. ‘Othello’ becomes a hollow lip-worship; and the ‘ Castle Spectre,’ or any more peccant thing of Froth, Noise, and Impermanence, that may have overbillowed it on the restless sea of curiosity, is the true Prayer of the Praise and Admiration.

I thought it right to state to you these opinions of mine, that you might know that I think the Translation of the Faust a task demanding (from me, I mean), no ordinary efforts—and why? This—that it is painful, very painful, and even odious to me, to attempt anything of a literary nature, with any motive of pecuniary advantage; but that I bow to the all-wise Providence, which has made me a poor man, and therefore compelled me by other duties inspiring feelings, to bring even my Intellect to the Market. And the finale is this. I should like to attempt the Translation. If you will mention your terms, at once and irrevocably (for I am an idiot at bargaining, and shrink from the very thought), I will return an answer by the next Post, whether in my present circumstances, I can or cannot undertake it. If I do, I will do it immediately; but I must have all Goethe’s works, which I cannot procure in Bristol; for to give the ‘Faust’ without a preliminary critical Essay would be worse than nothing, as far as regards the Public. If you were to ask me as a Friend, whether I think it would suit the General Taste, I should reply that I cannot calculate on caprice and accident (for instance, some fashionable man or review happening to take it up favourably), but that otherwise my fears would be stronger than my hopes. Men of genius will admire it, of necessity. Those must, who think deepest and most imaginatively. Then ‘Louisa’ would delight all of good hearts.

I remain, dear Sir, With every respect, S. T. Coleridge .

To this letter Mr. Murray replied as follows:—

John Murray to Mr. Coleridge.

August 29th, 1814. Dear Sir,

I feel greatly obliged by the favour of your attention to the request which I had solicited our friend Mr. Robinson to make to you for the translation of Goethe’s extraordinary drama of ‘Faust,’ which I suspect that no one could do justice to besides yourself. It will be the first attempt to render into classical English a German work of peculiar but certainly of unquestionable Genius; and you must allow that its effects upon the public must be doubtful. I am desirous however of making the experiment, and this I would not do under a less skilful agent than the one to whom I have applied. I am no less anxious that you should receive, as far as I think the thing can admit, a fair remuneration; and trusting that you will not undertake it unless you feel disposed to execute the labour perfectly con amore, and in a style of versification equal to ‘Remorse,’ I venture to propose to you the sum of One Hundred Pounds for the Translation and the preliminary Analysis, with such passages translated as you may judge proper of the works of Goethe, with a copy of which I will have the pleasure of supplying you as soon as I have your final determination. The sum which I mention shall be paid to you in two months from the day on which you place the complete Translation and Analysis in my hands; this will allow a reasonable time for your previous correction of the sheets through the press. I shall be glad to hear from you by return of Post, if convenient, as I propose to set out this week for the Continent. If this work succeeds, I am in hopes that it will lead to many similar undertakings.

With sincere esteem, I am, dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, J. Murray.

I should hope that it might not prove inconvenient to you to complete the whole for Press in the course of November next.

Mr. Coleridge replied as follows, from the same address:—

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

August 31st, 1814. Dear Sir,

I have received your letter. Considering the necessary labour, and (from the questionable nature of the original work, both as to its fair claims to Fame—the diction of the good and wise according to unchanging principles—and as to its chance for Reputation, as an accidental result of local and temporary taste), the risk of character on the part of the Translator, who will assuredly have to answer for any disappointment of the reader, the terms proposed are humiliatingly low; yet such as, under modifications, I accede to. I have received testimonials from men not merely of genius according to my belief, but of the highest accredited reputation, that my translation of ‘Wallenstein’ was in language and in metre superior to the original, and the parts most admired were substitutions of my own, on a principle of compensation. Yet the whole work went for waste-paper. I was abused—nay, my own remarks in the Preface were transferred to a Review, as the Reviewer’s sentiments against me, without even a hint that he had copied them from my own Preface. Such was the fate of ‘Wallenstein’! And yet I dare appeal to any number of men of Genius—say, for instance, Mr. Walter Scott, Mr. Southey, Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sotheby, Sir G. Beaumont, &c., whether the ‘Wallenstein’ with all its defects (and it has grievous defects), is not worth all Schiller’s other plays put together. But I wonder not. It was too good, and not good enough; and the advice of the younger Pliny: ‘Aim at pleasing either all, or the few,’ is as prudentially good as it is philosophically accurate. I wrote to Mr. Longman before the work was published, and foretold its fate, even to a detailed accuracy, and advised him to put up with the loss from the purchase of the MSS. and of the Translation, as a much less evil than the publication. I went so far as to declare that its success was, in the state of public Taste, impossible; that the enthusiastic admirers of ‘The Robbers,’ ‘Cabal and Love,’ &c., would lay the blame on me; and that he himself would suspect that if he had only let on another Translator than, &c. Everything took place as I had foretold, even his own feelings—so little do Prophets gain from the fulfilment of their Prophecies!

On the other hand, though I know that executed as alone I can or dare do it—that is, to the utmost of my power (for which the intolerable Pain, nay the far greater Toil and Effort of doing otherwise, is a far safer Pledge than any solicitude on my part concerning the approbation of the Public), the translation of so very difficult a work as the ‘Faustus,’ will be most inadequately remunerated by the terms you propose; yet they very probably are the highest it may be worth your while to offer to me. I say this as a philosopher; for, though I have now been much talked of, and written of, for evil and not for good, but for suspected capability, yet none of my works have ever sold. The ‘Wallenstein’ went to the waste-basket. The ‘Remorse,’ though acted twenty times, rests quietly on the shelves in the second edition, with copies enough for seven years’ consumption, or seven times seven. I lost £200 by the non-payment, from forgetfulness, and under various pretences, by ‘The Friend’;* and for my poems I did get from £10 to £15. And yet, forsooth, the Quarterly Review attacks me for neglecting and misusing my powers! I do not quarrel with the Public—all is as it must be—but surely the Public (if there be such a thing) has no right to

* Twenty-seven numbers of The Friend were published by Coleridge at Penrith in Cumberland in 1809-10, but the periodical proved a failure, principally from the irregularity of its appearance. It was about this time that he was addicted to opium-eating.

quarrel with me for not getting more, for I fail by publishing what they will not read!

The ‘Faust,’ you perhaps know, is only a Fragment. Whether Goethe ever will finish it, or whether it is ever his object to do so, is quite unknown. A large proportion of the work cannot be rendered in blank verse, but must be given in wild lyrical metres; and Mr. Lamb informs me that the Baroness de Staël has given a very unfavourable account of the work. Still, however, I will undertake it, and that instantly, so as to let you have the last sheet by the middle of November, on the following terms:—

I. That on the delivery of the last MS. sheet you remit 100 guineas to Mrs. Coleridge, or Mr. Robert Southey, at a bill of five weeks. 2. That I, or my widow or family, may, any time after two years from the first publication, have the privilege of reprinting it in any collection of all my poetical writings, or of my works in general, which set off with a Life of me, might perhaps be made profitable to my widow. And 3rd, that if (as I long ago meditated) I should re-model the whole, give it a finale, and be able to bring it, thus re-written and re-cast, on the stage, it shall not be considered as a breach of the engagement between us, I on my part promising that you shall, for an equitable consideration, have the copy of this new work, either as a separate work, or forming a part of the same volume or book, as circumstances may dictate to you. When I say that I am confident that in this possible and not probable case, I should not repeat or retain one fifth of the original, you will perceive that I consult only my dread of appearing to act amiss, as it would be even more easy to compose the whole anew.

If these terms suit you I will commence the Task as soon as I receive Goethe’s works from you. If you could procure Goethe’s late Life of himself, which extends to a short way, or any German biographical work, it would enable me to render the preliminary Essay more entertaining.

Most respectfully yours, dear Sir, S. T. Coleridge .

Mr. Murray’s reply to this letter has not been preserved. At all events, nothing further was done by Coleridge with respect to the translation of ‘Faust,’ which is to be deplored, as his exquisite and original melody of versification might have produced a translation almost as great as the original.

Shortly after Coleridge took up his residence with the Gillmans at Highgate, and his intercourse with Murray recommenced. Lord Byron, while on the managing committee of Drury Lane Theatre, had been instrumental in getting Coleridge’s ‘Remorse’ played upon the stage, as he entertained a great respect for its author. He was now encouraging Mr. Murray to publish other works by Coleridge—among others, ‘Zapolya’ and ‘Christabel.’

On the 12th of April, 1816, Coleridge gave the following lines to Mr. Murray, written in his own hand:—*

Glycine: a Song. A sunny shaft did I behold, From sky to earth it slanted, And pois’d therein a Bird so bold— Sweet bird! thou wert enchanted! He sank, he rose, he twinkled, troll’d, Within that shaft of sunny mist: His Eyes of Fire, his Beak of Gold, All else of Amethyst! And thus he sang: Adieu! Adieu! Love’s dreams prove seldom true. Sweet month of May! we must away! Far, far away! To day! to day!

In the following month (May 8th, 1816) Mr. Coleridge offered Mr. Murray his ‘Remorse’ for publication, with a Preface. He also offered his poem of ‘Christabel,’ still unfinished. For the latter Mr. Murray agreed to give him seventy guineas, “until the other poems shall be completed, when the copyright shall revert to the author,” and also

* We give the lines because they are not included in Coleridge’s complete works; yet they were set to music many years ago.

£20 for permission to publish the poem entitled ‘Kubla Khan,’ but which the author should not be restricted from publishing in any other way that he pleased.

Next month (June 6th, 1816) Mr. Murray allowed Coleridge £50 for an edition of 1000 of his ‘Christmas Tale,’ and he also advanced him another £50 for a play then in course of composition; in default of this being completed, the ‘Christmas Tale’ to become Mr. Murray’s property. The drama proved to be ‘Zapolya,’ which was not completed till the following year. In the meantime Coleridge was full of “plans,” as will be seen from the following letter:—

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

Highgate, July 4th, 1816.

I have often thought that there might be set on foot a review of old books, i.e., of all works important or remarkable, the authors of which are deceased, with a probability of a tolerable sale, if only the original plan were a good one, and if no articles were admitted but from men who understood and recognized the Principles and Rules of Criticism, which should form the first number. I would not take the works chronologically, but according to the likeness or contrast of the kind of genius—ex. gr. Jeremy Taylor, Milton (his prose works), and Burke—Dante and Milton (poetry)—Scaliger and Dr. Johnson. Secondly, if especial attention were paid to all men who had produced, or aided in producing, any great revolution in the Taste or opinion of an age, as Petrarch, Ulrich von Hutten, &c. (here I will dare risk the self-conceit of referring to my own parallel of Voltaire and Erasmus, of Luther and Rousseau in the seventh number of ‘The Friend’). Lastly, if proper care was taken that in every number of the Review there should be a fair proportion of amusing matter, such as a review of Paracelsus, Cardan, Old Fuller; a review of Jest Books, tracing the various metempsychosis of the same joke through all ages and countries; a History of Court Fools, for which a laborious German has furnished ample and highly interesting materials; foreign writers, though alive, not to be excluded, if only their works are of established character in their own country, and scarcely heard of, much less translated, in English literature. Jean Paul Richter would supply two or three delightful articles.

Any works which should fall in your way respecting the Jews since the destruction of the Temple, I should of course be glad to look through. Above all, Mezeray’s (no! that is not the name, I think) ‘History of the Jews,’ that I must have.

I shall be impatient for the rest of Mr. Frere’s sheets. Most unfeignedly can I declare that I am unable to decide whether the admiration which the excellence inspires, or the wonder which the knowledge of the countless difficulties so happily overcome, never ceases to excite in my mind during the re-perusal and collation of them with the original Greek, be the greater. I have not a moment’s hesitation in fixing on Mr. Frere as the man of the correctest and most genial taste among all our contemporaries whom I have ever met with, personally or in their works. Should choice or chance lead you to sun and air yourself on Highgate Hill during any of your holiday excursions, my worthy friend and his amiable and accomplished wife will be happy to see you. We dine at four, and drink tea at six.

Yours ever respectfully, S. T. Coleridge .

Mr. Murray did not accept Mr. Coleridge’s proposal to publish his works in a collected form or his articles for the Quarterly, as appears from the following letter:—

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

Highgate, March 26th, 1817. Dear Sir,

I cannot be offended by your opinion that my talents are not adequate to the requisites of matter and manner for the Quarterly Review, nor should I consider it as a disgrace to fall short of Robert Southey in any department of literature. I owe, however, an honest gratification to the conversation between you and Mr. Gillman, for I read Southey’s article, on which Mr. Gillman and I have, it appears, formed very different opinions. It is, in my judgment, a very masterly article.* I would to heaven, my dear sir, that the opinions of Southey, Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Mr. Frere, and of men like these in learning and genius, concerning my comparative claims to be a man of letters, were to be received as the criterion, instead of the wretched, and in deed and in word mystical jargon of the Examiner and Edinburgh Review.

Mr. Randall will be so good as to repay you the £50, and I understand from Mr. Gillman that you are willing to receive this as a settlement respecting the ‘Zapolya.’ The corrections and additions to the two first books of the ‘Christabel’ may become of more value to you when the work is finished, as I trust it will be in the course of the spring, than they are at present. And let it not be forgotten, that while I had the utmost malignity of personal enmity to cry down the work, with the exception of Lord Byron, there was not one of the many who had so many years together spoken so warmly in its praise who gave it the least positive furtherance after its publication. It was openly asserted that the Quarterly Review did not wish to attack it, but was ashamed to say a word in its praise. Thank God! these things pass from me like drops from a duck’s back, except as far as they take the bread out of my mouth; and this I can avoid by consenting to publish only for the present times whatever I may write. You will be so kind as to acknowledge the receipt of the £50 in such manner as to make all matters as clear between us as possible; for, though you, I am sure, could not have intended to injure my character, yet the misconceptions, and perhaps misrepresentations, of your words have had that tendency. By a letter from R. Southey I find that he will be in town on the 17th. The article in Tuesday’s Courier was by me, and two other articles on Apostacy and Renegadeism, which will appear this week.

Believe me, with respect, your obliged, S. T. Coleridge .

* This must have been Southey’s article on Parliamentary Reform, in No 31, which, though due in October 1816, was not published until February 1817.

The following letter completes Coleridge’s correspondence with Murray:—

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

Highgate, March 29th, 1817. Dear Sir,

From not referring to the paper dictated by yourself, and signed by me in your presence, you have wronged yourself in the receipt you have been so good as to send me, and on which I have written as follows—“A mistake; I am still indebted to Mr. Murray £20 legally (which I shall pay the moment it is in my power), and £30 from whatever sum I may receive from the ‘Christabel’ when it is finished. Should Mr. Murray decline its publication, I conceive myself bound in honor to repay.” I strive in vain to discover any single act or expression of my own, or for which I could be directly or indirectly responsible as a moral being, that would account for the change in your mode of thinking respecting me. But, with every due acknowledgment of the kindness and courtesy that I received from you since my first coming to town,

I remain, dear Sir, your obliged, S. T. Coleridge .

Leigh Hunt was another of Murray’s correspondents. When the Quarterly was started, Hunt, in his Autobiography, says that “he had been invited, nay pressed by the publisher, to write in the new Review, which surprised me, considering its politics and the great difference of my own.” Hunt adds that he had no doubt that the invitation had been made at the instance of Gifford himself. Murray had a high opinion of Hunt as a critic, but not as a politician. Writing to Walter Scott in 1810 he said:—

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

“Have you got or seen Hunt’s critical essays, prefixed to a few novels that he edited. Lest you should not, I send them. Hunt is most vilely wrongheaded in politics, and has thereby been turned away from the path of elegant criticism, which might have led him to eminence and respectability.”

Hunt was then, with his brother, joint editor of the Examiner, and preferred writing for the newspaper to contributing articles to the Quarterly.

On Leigh Hunt’s release from Horsemonger Lane Gaol, where he had been imprisoned for his libel on the Prince Regent, he proceeded, on the strength of his reputation, to compose the ‘Story of Rimini,’ the publication of which gave the author a place among the poets of the day. He sent a portion of the manuscript to Mr. Murray before the poem was finished, saying that it would amount to about 1400 lines. Hunt then proceeded (18th December, 1815) to mention the terms which he proposed to be paid for his work when finished. “Booksellers,” he said, “tell me that I ought not to ask less than £450 (which is a sum I happen to want just now); and my friends, not in the trade, say I ought not to ask less than £500, with such a trifling acknowledgment upon the various editions after the second and third, as shall enable me to say that I am still profiting by it.”

Mr. Murray sent his reply to Hunt through their common friend, Lord Byron:—

John Murray to Lord Byron. Dec. 27th, 1815.

“I wish your lordship to do me the favour to look at and to consider with your usual kindness the accompanying note to Mr. Leigh Hunt respecting his poem, for which he requests £450. This would presuppose a sale of, at least, 10,000 copies. Now, if I may trust to my own experience in these matters, I am by no means certain that the sale would do more than repay the expenses of paper and print. But the poem is peculiar, and may be more successful than I imagine, in which event the proposition which I have made to the author will secure to him all the advantages of such a result. I trust that you will see in this an anxious desire to serve Mr. Hunt, although as a mere matter of business I cannot avail myself of his offer. I would have preferred calling upon you to-day were I not confined by a temporary indisposition; but I think you will not be displeased at a determination founded upon the best judgment I can form of my own business. I am really uneasy at your feelings in this affair, but I think I may venture to assume that you know me sufficiently well to allow me to trust my decision entirely to your usual kindness.”

John Murray to Mr. Leigh Hunt.

Dec. 27th, 1815. Dear Sir,

I have now read the M S. poem, which you confided to me, with particular attention, and find that it differs so much from any that I have published that I am fearful of venturing upon the extensive speculation to which your estimate would carry it. I therefore wish that you would propose its publication and purchase to such houses as Cadell, Longman, Baldwin, Mawman, &c., who are capable of becoming and likely to become purchasers, and then, should you not have found any arrangement to your mind, I would undertake to print an edition of 500 or 750 copies as a trial at my own risk, and give you one half of the profits. After this edition the copyright shall be entirely your own property. By this arrangement, in case the work turn out a prize, as it may do, I mean that you should have every advantage of its success, for its popularity once ascertained, I am sure you will find no difficulty in procuring purchasers, even if you should be suspicious of my liberality from this specimen of fearfulness in the first instance. I shall be most happy to assist you with any advice which my experience in these matters may render serviceable to you.

John Murray .

Leigh Hunt replied at once:—

Mr. Leigh Hunt to John Murray. Dec. 27th, 1815.

“The proposal to share the profits of a moderate first edition, and then to leave me in possession of the copyright, appears to me to be not at all wanting in liberality, especially under the impression you have of it, as being an experiment. Should the poem not succeed, I shall, on my own part, be relieved from the awkward feeling of having been paid for what was not worth it. Should it be otherwise, I shall have the pleasure of showing my sense of your gentlemanly conduct in the fresh bargain you will allow me to make with you.”

After the poem was printed and published, Mr. Hunt, being pressed for money, made an application to the publisher, to which the following reply was given:—

John Murray to Mr. Leigh Hunt. March 29th, 1816.

“The net balance of profit, supposing every copy to be sold, is £91 5s., of which your half will be £45 12s. 6d., for which, deducting £3 2s. 6d. for copies delivered to your order, there remains £42 10s. This I very willingly make £50, and enclose a note at three months for that sum in full for your share of this edition, and thus we will close the account. I have no doubt of the quick sale of the remainder of this edition, and look confidently to the publication of many others. I hope the bill I enclose will answer your present occasion, for the demands on me are so extensive that I am under the necessity of weighing out my means with circumspection. If you are satisfied with my statement, you will perhaps write a few lines saying that you have received a note from me at three months, £50 in full for your share and demand upon the first edition of ‘Rimini.’”

Mr. Hunt delayed sending the receipt until the 9th of April following, when he enclosed it with the following letter:—

Mr. Leigh Hunt to John Murray.

Dear Sir,

You would have had the enclosed sooner, but I hoped, day after day, to have the pleasure of calling upon you, and have been twice in Piccadilly since you wrote to me. On one of the days, however, I was very late at dinner where I was engaged, and the other was a Sunday, when I thought you might choose to have one day out of seven to yourself and not be profanely interrupted. I am now going to say a word or two on the subject of the sale of my copyright, and ought indeed to have mentioned it before, but for a foolish disinclination I have to talk of these matters. Before I proceed any further I wish to say that I consider you, and you alone, as having possession of that copyright ultimately, from your having gone so far with it already in the publication, and treated me in so gentlemanly a manner; nor, in case it should be inconvenient to you to do what I am about to mention, shall I make use of the book in any other quarter, not that you might object perhaps to my so doing, but because, for my own gratification and convenience, I would much rather raise the money I want in another manner. There is no question therefore whatsoever on that point; all that I want to know is, whether you can do for me what I ask conveniently for your general speculations and the other demands upon you.

After a tedious recitation of his pecuniary troubles, Hunt concludes:

What I wanted to ask you then is simply this—whether, in the first instance, you think well enough of the ‘Story of Rimini’ to make you bargain with me for the copyright at once; or, in the second instance, whether, if you would rather wait a little, as I myself would do, I confess, if it were convenient, you have still enough hopes of the work, and enough reliance on myself personally, to advance me £450 on security, to be repaid in case you do not conclude the bargain, or merged in the payment of the poem in case you do.

Believe me, very sincerely yours, Leigh Hunt .

To this letter, Mr. Murray at once replied, desiring Mr. Hunt to stop for the present his proposed publication, as it might have the effect of drawing attention from the ‘Story of Rimini,’ which was rising in public estimation, and, left to itself, would make its way. “Any publication,” he said, “of the nature you propose, succeeding it so rapidly, would have the effect, at least, of dividing attention, and perhaps of drawing it off from an important object to fix it upon one of less moment.” Mr. Murray’s reply was not satisfactory, as will be observed from the following letter of Leigh Hunt:—

Mr. Leigh Hunt to John Murray.

April 12th, 1816. Dear Sir,

I just write to say something which I had omitted in my last, and to add a word or two on the subject of an expression in your answer to it. I mean the phrase “plan of assistance.” I do not suppose that you had the slightest intention of mortifying me by that phrase; but I should wish to impress upon you, that I did not consider my application to you as coming in the shape of what is ordinarily termed an application for assistance. Circumstances have certainly compelled me latterly to make requests, and resort to expedients, which, however proper in themselves, I would not willingly have been acquainted with; but I have very good prospects before me, and you are mistaken (I beg you to read this in the best and most friendly tone you can present to yourself) if you have at all apprehended that I should be in the habit of applying to you for assistance, or for anything whatsoever, for which I did not conceive the work in question to be more than a security.

I can only say, with regard to yourself, that I am quite contented, and ought to be so, as long as you are sincere with me, and treat me in the same gentlemanly tone.

Believe me, very sincerely yours, Leigh Hunt .

This negotiation was ultimately brought to a conclusion by Mr. Hunt, at Mr. Murray’s suggestion, disposing of the copyright of ‘Rimini’ to another publisher.

Mr. Murray had a good deal of correspondence with Madame de Staël. He had in 1813 published her ‘L’Allemagne,’ which was translated by F. Hodgson, edited by William Lamb, and excited a considerable sensation at the time. Napoleon was furious at its original publication at Paris, and ordered Savary, the Minister of Police, to seize the whole stock of ‘L’Allemagne’ at the Paris publishers, virtually hunted Madame de Staël from France, and had a strict watch kept upon her at Coppet, in Switzerland, whither she had retired for refuge. At length she contrived to escape, and went by way of Russia to England, where she superintended the translation and publication of her work.

Neither Byron nor Gifford had a very high opinion of Madame de Staël, though readers of Byron’s letters are aware that in later years, when he came to know Italy, he saw reason to modify some of his criticisms, as, for instance, when he wrote in a note to Corinne, “I little thought that one day I should think with her thoughts, in the country where she has laid the scene of her most attractive production. She is sometimes right, and often wrong, about Italy and England; but almost always true in delineating the heart, which is of but one nation, and of no country; or, rather, of all.”

Gifford wrote of her to Murray, when the question of publishing the translation of her ‘L’Allemagne’ was under consideration.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. Ryde, July 12th, 1813.

“As to Madame de Staël, I can say nothing, and perhaps your bargain is off. At any rate, I can venture to assure you that the hope of keeping her from the press is quite vain. The family of Œdipus were not more haunted and goaded by the Furies than the Neckers, father, mother, and daughter, have always been by the demon of publication. Madame de Staël will therefore write and print without intermission. The volumes you were in treaty for promised to have something of novelty, and are besides well timed. Her suicidal work* I have not yet looked at; but in a note I have had to-day from Mr. Wilmot, he proposes a short review of it.”

The work was afterwards accepted and published by Mr. Murray, and succeeded tolerably well. During the time of her residence in London, Madame de Staël used frequently to dine with Mr. Murray, and was in the habit of writing short notes to him, of which the following are given as specimens. The first contains her proposed introduction to the forthcoming work:—

Madame de Staël to John Murray.

Lundi, Nov. 30, 1813.

Cet ouvrage sur les mœurs, la société, la littérature, la philosophie et la réligion des Allemands, a été imprimé à dix milles exemplaires à Paris en 1810, et au moment où il allait paraître il a été supprimé par la police et tous les exemplaires mis en pièces. Un seul a échappé par hasard,

* “Mdme. de Staël hath published an essay against Suicide, which I presume will make somebody shoot himself; as a sermon by Blenkinsop in proof of Christianity sent a hitherto most orthodox acquaintance of mine out of a chapel of ease a perfect atheist.”—Byron to Moore, July 8th, 1803.

et c’est sur celui-là que Mr. John Murray a ré-imprimé l’ouvrage.

J’ai assez de chose à vous dire et à vous demander, my dear Sir. Un diner de famille vous ennuyerait-il? Et voulez-vous venir demain à 6 h. et demie chez moi?

Mille compliments, A. De Staël .

Bowood, near Calne, le 26 8bre, 1813.

Voilà la préface, my dear Sir, avec les corrections de Sir James que je vous prie de faire accepter. Je serai de retour à Londres vendredi 5 Novembre; ainsi je vous prie de ne pas envoyer l’exemplaire du Prince Regent avant que je vous aye vu; ce qui sera j’espére samedi matin, Argyle Street, No. 31.—Nous avons ici la plus intéressante réunion du monde, tout-à-fait digne du maître et de la maîtresse de la maison: on s’y parle beaucoup de vos procédés envers les hommes de lettres: j’entends Sir James [Mackintosh] et moi. Je vous demanderai un exemplaire à Dument, un à Rogers, et un à Lucien, à qui j’ecrirai. Je souhait presqu’autant pour vous que pour moi le succés de mon ouvrage.

Mille compliments, A. De Staël .

Mercredi, Sept. 15, 1813.

Je serai chez vous vendredi à cinq heures, my dear Sir. J’ai été charmée de Mr. Southey; son âme et son esprit m’ont paru de la même force et dans le même sens. Il y a bien longtemps que je n’ai été chez vous, c’est à dire in the head-quarters of Mr. Canning.

Mille compliments, A. De Staël .

Mille graces du ‘Corsaire;’ il y a de l’esprit beaucoup et de l’interêt. Je vous attendrai un de ces matins avec Mr. Hamilton. Mille remerciements pour le roman de Mlle. Burney! Et répondez-moi un de ces jours sur mes diverses propositions à l’égard de M. Constant, lettres sur Rousseau, Delphine, &c. Parlez à Colburn, mais quand vous voudriez; je ne suis pas pressée.

In 1814, after Napoleon’s abdication, Madame de Staël returned to Paris, where she supported Louis XVIII.; she remained there until after the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, when she returned to Coppet, in Switzerland, and proceeded to prepare her final work for the press, ‘Considérations sur la Révolution Française.’

On the 28th of June, 1816, the Baron de Staël wrote to Mr. Murray on the subject of his mother’s work, ‘Des Causes et des Effets de la Révolution Française.’ He said that the plan had been extended, that it would be in three volumes, and that the work was calculated to produce a general sensation in Europe.

“From all this,” he continued, “you must conceive that the offer you made of £2000 to my mother for the two first volumes is no more acceptable, since the book is extended to three, and contains two different works united in one. She therefore insists upon £4000, besides a credit in books for every new edition. . . . Another circumstance worthy of your consideration is, that the censure making it impossible to print the book in France, you will probably find the means of selling part of your edition in that country.”

Murray having conferred with the Messrs. Longman on the subject, proposing that they should share it, replied as follows:—

John Murray to Baron de Staël.

July 19th, 1816. Dear Sir,

I have just returned to town after a sudden call to the country, after the receipt of your obliging letter, which I now answer in haste. You are not aware, I suppose, of the great changes which have taken place in the sale of everything in this country, which is operating to the destruction of speculations of any kind. I am truly sorry to say that neither I, nor Mr. Longman conjointly with me, can venture upon the new work of Mad. de Staël at the sum which you mention; but we are desirous that the author should reap every fair advantage in case the work should succeed beyond our calculations: and we therefore propose to offer the sum of one thousand pounds for one edition of the work in French and one in English—we paying for the translation—each to consist of fifteen hundred copies; the sum to be paid at two months from the day on which we shall publish each edition; and for every future edition, of either the original or the Translation, to consist of one thousand copies, we engage to pay the sum of three hundred and fifty pounds after the sale of the one thousand copies. You have no conception of the total alteration since we have had the opportunity of emigrating to foreign countries, and I could not have made you this slender offer unless Messrs. Longman had agreed to take half the risk. I beg the favour of you to offer my compliments to Madame de Staël. I will have the pleasure of writing more at large in a few days when I shall send the account. In the meantime,

I remain, dear Sir, Your obliged and faithful Servant, John Murray .

Madame de Staël was not satisfied with this letter. Mr. Murray had explained that her work ‘L’Allemagne’ had not been so satisfactory as she supposed; nevertheless, she urged that the proposed work was likely to be much more attractive to the public—especially the third volume, which would

“Contain a picture of all your public characters. I don’t question,” she said, through the pen of her son, the Baron de Staël (28th December, 1816), “the exactitude of the statement which you give me of the returns of ‘L’Allemagne’: but whatever it be, I don’t hesitate to say that I should think it a good speculation to pay for the grandest work the double of what you paid to the former; considering, besides, that you have the privilege for the translation as well as of the original. In short, the only reduction which I think my mother would agree to is the sum of £2500 for her volumes, that Sir J. Mackintosh had been commissioned by you to propose to her two years ago.

“A. Staël De G.

Madame de Staël died in the following year (14th July, 1817), and the work in question was not published until 1818. A few days after her death Mr. J. W. Ward (afterwards Lord Dudley) wrote to Mr. Murray:—

The Honble. J. W. Ward to John Murray. July 17th, 1817.

“I saw poor Madame de Staël four days before she died. She was looking wretchedly ill, and showed indications of great languor and weakness. But her understanding was quite unimpaired. She evidently thought very ill of her own situation, though at the same time she had no notion how near she was to her end. There is a story here (Paris), that just at last she was reconciled to the Church of Rome, chiefly, it is said, by the persuasion of Viscount Montgomery. Perhaps, too, Mr. Schlegel contributed his influence to this event. He had already set the example. I do not know the fact for certain, but I think it is not improbable. I also understand that it now appears she had been for some time married to Mr. Rocca, I do not know in what state of forwardness her book was; but I should hope that a part of it at least was fit for publication.”

After his mother’s death, Baron de Staël continued his negotiations with Mr. Murray, but no satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at, and the work was in the end published by Messrs. Baldwin and Cradock.

Another lady who was to be enrolled on the list of Mr. Murray’s most successful authoresses was the daughter of Rear-Admiral Dundas, then the wife of Captain Graham, R.N., nephew of James Graham, author of ‘The Sabbath.’ Mr. Murray had sent her a copy of the Quarterly, and received the following reply:—

Mrs. Graham to John Murray.

Broughty Ferry, December 9th, 1815. My dear Sir,

I conclude that the Quarterly Review and Miss Williams’ account of France, which I have lately received from the Foreign Office, are from you. I assure you that both are most acceptable in this retired place; between which and the nearest court of Modern Literature lie the two formidable waters which keep this corner of Angus at least a century behind other places in the known civilized world. It is true that the ruins of Cardinal Beatoun’s tower, and the Cathedral and College of St. Andrews, are visible from our windows; but they carry one back only to times of violence and civil war, and make one expect to hear more particulars of Huntley’s conspiracy, or of Mary’s weakness, and Knox’s hard justice, while you are listening to tales from Paris of oppressed people and king, and spoiled galleries and humbled conquerors, and imprisoned Emperors, and things just, and but just, remembered here, where a weekly paper at most connects us with the news of the southern world. But we have books and a garden, and, like all poor people, plenty of occupation for our hands, and even heads, that we may live and not lose caste, which in this poor, proud country, where Montrose and Dundee are still in the mouths of the people, is even more difficult than in most parts of the southern portion of the Island. Our establishment here consists of our two selves, a sister of Graham’s, two women, two dogs, and some poultry; and our cottage is large enough to entertain a friend; so that in spite of peace and half pay we are far better off than most of our brother officers. The dogs and gun furnish an excuse for a great deal of walking to the Captain, and the garden for a good deal of exercise to me; but as to a party, either for a dinner, or an evening, or a morning visit, they are things quite unknown and un-thought of. It is a better life than a London one, perhaps, and if it has fewer pleasures, it has fewer cares and disappointments; for we know to a certainty who we shall sit by at dinner, and which portion of our book of last night will either divert or weary us to-night, unless indeed the morning’s post brings such a variety as this morning produced, from any kind person who happens to remember our existence here. Our best thanks, and believe me to be always,

Your much obliged, Maria Graham .

Some years afterwards Mrs. Graham visited London, and called upon Mr. Murray. She was exceedingly anxious that her husband should leave his half pay, and be again put in command of a ship. Murray promised to help her so far as he could, and to this end he invited Croker, then Secretary to the Admiralty, to dine at Albemarle Street, and arranged to place Mrs. Graham by his side, in order that she might have an opportunity of stating her views as to the reappointment of her husband. Murray had not fully taken into account that Mrs. Graham was not only a Whig, but a high-spirited woman, who did not hold back her opinions—nor did Croker hold back his—and the consequence was that they got into collision about politics. At the close of the dinner, Croker said to Murray’s son, John, “Run down for a copy of the Navy List, and bring it here.” After it had been brought, Croker looked through the list, and found the name of Graham. Murray thought he had intended to put a black mark after his name, in consequence of what had occurred; but on the contrary, Croker, who liked a woman of spirit, took occasion to speak in Captain Graham’s favour; and he was shortly after appointed to the command of the Doris, and made a voyage, with Mrs. Graham on board, in the Mediterranean. Captain Graham was afterwards ordered to the coast of Brazil, whence Mrs. Graham addressed many interesting letters to her friends in Albemarle Street Some time after the death of Captain Graham, R.N., she married Mr., afterwards Sir Augustus, Callcott, R.A. Although she had before published some interesting books—such as ‘An Account of her Travels in India,’ her ‘Three Months in the Environs of Rome,’ her ‘History of Spain,’ and several works on Art,—her most popular and best read work was ‘Little Arthur’s History of England.’ many hundred thousand copies of which have by this time been printed and published.

CHAPTER XIV. THOMAS CAMPBELL—JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE—JAMES HOGG, ETC.

Thomas Campbell appeared like a meteor as early as 1799, when, in his twenty-second year, he published his ‘Pleasures of Hope.’ The world was taken by surprise at the vigour of thought and richness of fancy displayed in the poem. Shortly after its publication, Campbell went to Germany, and saw, from the Scottish Monastery of St. James’, the battle of Hohenlinden. On his return to Scotland, he published the beautiful lines beginning, “On Linden when the sun was low.” In 1801 he composed ‘The Exile of Erin,’ and ‘Ye Mariners of England.’ The ‘Battle of the Baltic,’ and ‘Locheil’s Warning’ followed; and in 1803 he published an edition of his poems. To have composed such noble lyrics was almost unprecedented in so young a man; for he was only twenty-six years of age when his collected edition appeared. He was treated as a lion, and became acquainted with Walter Scott and the leading men in Edinburgh. In December 1805 we find Constable writing to Murray, that Longman and Co. had offered the young poet £700 for a new volume of his poems.

Murray soon became intimate with Campbell, though he was kept waiting for many long years for the ‘Selections from British Poets,’ with an introductory memoir of each, which Campbell had agreed to write for him. The first idea of such a work occurred to Campbell in 1805, and he communicated his views to Walter Scott, through whom negotiations with Ballantyne and Cadell were opened; and though they were broken off for a time, Campbell pursued his idea. Soon after his first introduction to Murray he removed to London, taking up his residence at Sydenham.

Mr. T. Campbell to John Murray.

February 28th, 1806. Dear Sir,

I very much regret that an indisposition which, though slight, is not such as will permit me to make a journey to town, must prevent me from what would be no small pleasure, the forming of your more intimate acquaintance by a friendly meeting to-day. I console myself, however, on my absence from your agreeable party with the idea that I was invited to it. I also feel unfeigned pleasure at the prospect of seeing you at any future time without the reserve of unacquainted people. I am not a little flattered at your expression of so much good disposition on my behalf. . . . I should bid you to see me at Sydenham if it were not winter; but in summer I hope you will not unfrequently see, Sir,

Yours, with great respect, Thomas Campbell .

One of the earliest results of the association of Campbell with Murray was a proposal to start a new magazine, which Murray had long contemplated. This, it will be observed, was some years before the communications took place between Walter Scott and Murray with respect to the starting of the Quarterly. After the meeting Mr. Campbell wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mr. T. Campbell to John Murray.

March 3rd, 1806. My dear Sir,

As I put down in my own memorandum book all the desultory ideas respecting the new publication which we have in contemplation that occur to me, I think it may not be improper to transmit them to you also. You will be so good as to pardon the unsystematic appearance which those ideas must have, but which I trust will alter for the better as our scheme gets riper, and nearer being put in execution.

I have thought on many respectable names (since I had the pleasure of your society), of persons who, I think, may in all probability be brought to lend us their aid, Although our scheme is not scientific, yet a very pleasant mixture of science may enter it, and I have recollected since we met that Charles Bell, of Edinburgh, has come to London to settle—a man of really superior genius, as his forthcoming publication will show. I think we shall get something from him on his own favourite pursuit, the anatomy of painting.

Alison, the author of ‘Essays on Taste,’ is my particular friend. I am pretty sure he will give me important support. John Allen, a most admirably ingenious man, will assist me in a track of study which I mean immediately and eagerly to pursue—Spanish literature, as the little knowledge I possess of it may be easily improved, into what may usefully promote our magazine.

Professor Playfair, an elegant writer as well as philosopher, will contribute, I know, with my other northern friends, to give some éclat to our work. There are names I forgot to mention to you. Miss Baillie, I hope, will also give us a bit of poetry now and then. I have the honour to be her particular acquaintance. Let us by all means keep our scheme to ourselves till great aids are quite secure—till we are ready to step forward before the public without a hem or an apology, but boldly, and as becomes men conscious of deserving notice. I dread of all things the hue and cry getting up before we are ready. I trust, however, implicitly in the great degree of judgment and discretion which I know you to possess.

Let us also, my dear Sir, while we court great aids, keep ourselves disentangled from little ones. It is an invidious thing to hunt down tolerable though second-rate writers. It is breaking the peace and wounding their feelings by severe sayings or writings in public; but when our fame and fortune are staked on a plan like this, we must have no second-rates—especially in poetry.

In your plan of the ancient classics I feel myself warmly interested. I shall take very great pleasure indeed in every opportunity that you give me of suggesting what some fourteen years’ experience in the original and translated authors may make of use to the plan. I have little doubt also, that I could put you on a plan of supplying the “hiatuses” in poetical translation. These thoughts come at random.

From your very respectful and sincerely obliged, Thomas Campbell .

The projected magazine seems, however, to have dropped out of sight, and Campbell then reverted to his proposed ‘Lives of the British Poets, with Selections from their Writings.’ Toward the close of the year he addressed the following letter to Mr. Scott:—

Mr. T. Campbell to Mr. Scott.

November 5th, 1806. My Dear Scott,

A very excellent and gentlemanlike man—albeit a bookseller—Murray, of Fleet Street, is willing to give for our joint ‘Lives of the Poets,’ on the plan we proposed to the trade a twelvemonth ago, a thousand pounds. For my part, I think the engagement very desirable, and have no uneasiness on the subject, except my fear that you may be too much engaged to have to do with it, as five hundred pounds may not be to you the temptation that it appears to a poor devil like myself. Murray is the only gentleman, except Constable, in the trade;—I may also, perhaps, except Hood. I have seldom seen a pleasanter man to deal with. I foresee no chance of our disagreeing about the minuter arrangements, should the affair proceed. I think our choice of the lives for each would not be likely to set you and me by the ears. And, what makes me excessively desirous of the engagement, independent of its being pleasant work and good reward, is that it would probably fix me beside you in Edinburgh. . . . Our names are what Murray principally wants—yours in particular. The size, the manner, the time, and the whole arrangement of this work will be in our hands. . . . For my own part, I am not assuming any mock modesty, when I say that, so thankful shall I be to have an engagement to the amount of £500, that I will think no effort too great to show my sense of the good fortune to be associated with you in the undertaking. I have too much respect for you, and for myself, to importune you to join names with me; but I cannot disguise that I am deeply anxious for your answer. I will not wish, even in confidence, to say anything ill of the London booksellers beyond their deserts; but I assure you that, to compare this offer of Murray’s with their usual offers, it is magnanimous indeed. Longman and Rees, and a few of the great booksellers, have literally monopolised the trade, and the business of literature is getting a dreadful one indeed. The Row folks have done nothing for me yet; I know not what they intend. The fallen prices of literature—which is getting worse by the horrible complexion of the times—make me often rather gloomy at the life I am likely to lead. You may guess, therefore, my anxiety to close with this proposal; and you may think me charitable indeed to restrain myself from wishing that you were as poor as myself, that you might have motives to lend your aid.

Scott entered into Campbell’s agreement with kindness and promptitude, and it was arranged, under certain stipulations, that the plan should have his zealous cooperation; but as the number and importance of his literary engagements increased, he declined to take an active part either in the magazine or the other undertaking. The loss of Scott’s name seems to have been fatal to the progress of the periodical, but Campbell continued to hold to his idea of preparing ‘Selections from the British Poets.’ Communications took place between Constable and Murray on the subject, Campbell proposing that Constable should be the publisher. Murray replied to Constable’s letter (19th December, 1806):—

“I saw Campbell two days ago, and he told me that Mr. Scott had declined, and modestly asked if it would do by himself alone; but this I declined in a way that did not leave us the less friends.”

Campbell continued writing about the publication of his work to Constable, who seems to have disregarded his letters. Then he wrote to Mr. Jeffrey, who gave him no answer. At last he wrote to Henry (afterwards Lord) Cockburn, expressing his regret at Constable’s and Jeffrey’s silence, and requesting his intercession. “If Jeffrey does not take any interest in this affair of the ‘Selections,’ will you do me the kindness to call upon Mr. Constable and request an answer?” But no answer came; and Campbell was at length driven back upon Mr. Murray. The friendship between them grew closer, and Campbell was a frequent guest at Murray’s literary parties. To one of these invitations he replied:—

Mr. Campbell to John Murray,

April 9th, 1807. Dear Murray,

I do assure you that none of your present guests (not even excepting the landlord!) will more sincerely regret than I do the absence of that worthy gentleman, myself, from your expected and pleasant party. But the unforeseen event being no less than a summons from his Majesty’s deputy-lieutenant to answer respecting my free-will and consent to be draughted by the Training Act to serve (should it please His Majesty—God bless him) in a regiment of the Line, the absence of my company among the deputy-lieutenants might be attended with still more unpleasant consequences than absenting myself from your party. I hear you are to have Scott, whose address I have unfortunately lost. If he should dine with you I shall be much obliged if you will present my respects to him and tell him to remember Sydenham. I wish I could have been among you, but you see what comes of the Training Act. Mrs. Campbell joins me in best respects to Mrs. Murray. Believe me, dear Murray,

Truly yours, Thos. Campbell .

At length, after many communications and much personal intercourse, Murray agreed with Campbell to bring out his work, without the commanding name of Walter Scott, and with the name of Thomas Campbell alone as Editor of the ‘Selections from the British Poets.’ The arrangement seems to have been made towards the end of 1808. Campbell’s letter describes the nature of the proposed work:—

Mr. Campbell to John Murray.

January 28th, 1809.

I am inclined to believe that the more popular form of the ‘Elegant Extracts’ is the best adapted for our work. It is surely a fair competition in which we shall start, with that ill-constructed but as I understand very saleable compilation. With respect to the form of the work, however, I feel myself an incompetent adviser. I am confident enough in my power to make the merit of the book independent of its form. Its title I should call ‘The Selected Beauties of British Poetry, with lives of the Poets and Critical Dissertations. By T. C.,’ &c. This titlepage, however, may be arranged at our leisure. I begin with Chaucer, and continue through the whole succession of English Poets to the last of our own day. Many lives, and of course criticisms annexed to these lives, will be included which are not found in any preceding collection. Many anonymous Poems must also be inserted, with merely a notice of the name to which they are attributed, upon grounds too uncertain to admit of a Biography. Already I have done much in bringing together a number of excellent little poems which have been but partially noticed—known only to amateurs, and transcribed in their commonplace books, but most of them rarely, and some of them never, introduced into collections of Poetry. The bulk of these need not alarm you for the space they will occupy, as it is the common quality of excellence not to be bulky; but though these little stars of poetical excellence may be individually small, I hope they will form a brilliant constellation.

My Biographies I mean to be short, but I dare say you will remember that shortness is not always incompatible with being satisfactory. By short I don’t mean scanty. Where the merit of the Poet is not very interesting, I will endeavour to make his biography more interesting. Extreme accuracy I trust I shall always attain—indeed, with the prospect of such aid as you are so kind as to promise me, I need not fear falling into errors with the industry I propose to exert. At the same time I do not promise you a book of antiquarian dissertation. I mean to exert the main part of my strength on the merits and writings of each Poet as an Author, not on discoveries of little anecdotes, and of his residence and conversation as a man, unless such things are striking, and can be obtained without sacrificing the great object of my efforts, viz. to make a complete body of English Poetical Criticism. The Poets are all to be reviewed in their chronological succession, but both in my preface and in my biographies I mean to class the minor poets in the different orders of their general merit and particular characteristics. To the great Poets, such as Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Dryden, Pope and Thomson, I devote a separate and elaborate disquisition, treating them as they deserve, like great writers, having nothing in common but their greatness.

I mean to devote a year exclusively to this effort. It is not my part to say any more than I have said (I hope it will not appear immodestly) on my own competency to the task. I shall only add that I have written a good deal on the subject matter of it, and read and thought a great deal more. Independent of my duty as a fair dealer, which I trust would always deter me from performing a task in a slovenly manner, where the capital of an employer is risked and employed, I have every motive that can stimulate to industry, and that can make me anxious without being intimidated about the public opinion. With great respect and regard, believe me, dear Murray,

Your sincere friend, T. Campbell .

Fortified with these admirable resolutions, Campbell proceeded with his work, but the labour it involved was perhaps greater than he had anticipated. It was his first important prose work; and prose requires continuous labour. It cannot, like a piece of poetry, be thrown off at a heat while the fit is on. Moreover, Campbell stopped occasionally in the midst of his work to write poems, by which he hoped to subsist. It is true he had already, in his twenty-eighth year, obtained a pension of £200 a year; but this was not enough. In 1809 he published his ‘Gertrude of Wyoming’ and other poems, which confirmed his poetical reputation. Murray sent a copy of the volume to Walter Scott, and requested a review for the Quarterly, which was then in its first year. What Campbell thought of the review will appear from the following letter:—

Mr. T. Campbell to John Murray.

June 2nd, 1809. My Dear Murray,

I received the review, for which I thank you, and beg leave through you to express my best acknowledgments to the unknown reviewer. I do not by this mean to say that I think every one of his censures just. On the contrary, if I had an opportunity of personal conference with so candid and sensible a man, I think I could in some degree acquit myself of a part of the faults he has found. But altogether I am pleased with his manner, and very proud of his approbation. He reviews like a gentleman, a Christian, and a scholar.

Although the ‘Lives of the Poets’ had been promised within a year from January 1809, four years had passed, and the work was still far from completion.

In the meantime Campbell undertook to give a course of eleven Lectures on Poetry at the Royal Institution, for which he received a hundred guineas. He enriched his Lectures with the Remarks and Selections collected for the ‘Specimens,’ for which the publisher had agreed to pay a handsome sum. The result was a momentary hesitation on the part of Mr. Murray to risk the publication of the work. On this, says Campbell’s biographer, a correspondence ensued between the poet and the publisher, which ended to the satisfaction of both. Mr. Murray only requested that Mr. Campbell should proceed with greater alacrity in finishing the long projected work. It is only right, however, to give the poet’s letter to Mr. Murray in reference to his application for payment on account:—

Mr. T. Campbell to John Murray.

January 29th, 1814. Dear Murray,

I will finish your work, and never more trouble you on the subject of money. What I sought was not as a matter of right, but of pure favour. I am sorry it has annoyed you. You are bound to forgive me, I think, when I say that I regret the application. You have a right to refuse me on the score of a legal claim, but you do me some injustice in stating the grounds of your right of refusal. It is because my work is unfinished that this just denial must be admitted by me, but you should not found it on a circumstance which never existed—that of my having used your library for the purpose of other undertakings. Brewster, whose articles* I agreed to write by your express sanction before beginning our work, gave me a full order upon his bookseller, Richardson, for all books necessary for his biographies. They were, from the nature of the articles,

* For the ‘Edinburgh Encyclopædia.’

very few and of slight importance. Again, out of eleven lectures delivered at the Royal Institution, only two were upon the subjects of our ‘Criticisms’: the other nine were upon the philosophy of poetry, the Spanish, French, and Greek drama, and even upon our own dramatic writers, respecting whom I had not a single volume to assist me among your books.

The lengthened delay of the work has been occasioned by the nature of its materials, which lie so diversely scattered, that with all your zeal and liberality, and my own exertions, it has been physically impossible to collect them into one mass at one time. The other things on which I have been engaged have been resorted to as the mere supports of my family at certain intervals when I saw my finances near a close, and found that by the utmost progress I could make in our work, I could not have a just claim on you in time enough for my necessities. I wrote, not to ask from you or to annoy you, but to vindicate myself for past delays. Believe me, they have not been voluntary. Even now I believe I shall be obliged to cast about for some scheme of lecturing to make money wherewith to finish the ‘Criticisms,’ or at least to stand out the time when I shall be engaged in correcting the proofs, which I should not wish to be put too hastily off. I do not by this mean to insinuate the slightest wish again to trouble you. I feel that your refusal is perfectly just.

I thank you for expressing a wish that we should continue friends. I meet it cordially. I trust that the entire MSS. will convince you that instead of the Lectures starving the ‘Criticisms,’ they have enriched them much. The tone of our future intercourse will depend on your reception of this letter.

I remain, disposed as ever, To be sincerely, &c., yours, T. Campbell .

The following is Mr. Murray’s answer:—

John Murray to Mr. T. Campbell.

Mr. Davison (the printer) has some Government work, which has engrossed him too much of late. He now promises to put all his force upon the ‘Specimens,’ and to make up for his recent delays. I take the opportunity of assuring you how much I feel obliged by the labour which you are now bestowing upon the ‘Lives,’ which have become very interesting, and cannot fail to do you honour. I will send you Hayley’s ‘Cowper;’ it affords material for a very long and a peculiarly interesting life,—in which you can weave innumerable passages of great beauty from his letters, and all the touching part of the life written by himself. I assure you I think, when you have given scope to yourself, that your prose is not to be surpassed. I expect very very great things in your ‘Life of Burns.’ Don’t be afraid of room.

Most truly yours, John Murray .

On June 19th, 1815, Campbell writes:—

Mr. T. Campbell to John Murray.

“I condole with you very much on the misfortune of my being absent from your party on Friday; but still more with myself, since instead of having the honour of imbibing your wine, I had the honour of spending the day in profuse perspiration between blankets, and giving out more humidity than I could have possibly taken in if I had been drinking wine with you.”

The book was still long in coming out. The patience of author and publisher were alike exhausted. More letters passed between them. Many books were required, and sent to Sydenham. After the lapse of two years, the following letter was sent by Campbell to Murray:—

Mr. T. Campbell to John Murray.

April 28th, 1818.

I am divided in my opinion as to the quantity of extracts I should give from Goldsmith. Upon the whole, I think the ‘Deserted Village’ and ‘Traveller’ are so beautiful that they should not be broken up; but I don’t like to direct their being printed without its meeting your ideas of the work. You are in reality likely to judge much more accurately than I can do of the problem I have stated. If you can spare but a snatched moment to say Yes or No as to the whole or a part, I shall be obliged to you. I confess I should lean strongly to giving them entire.

Yours very faithfully, T. Campbell .

The books were sent. The work was now approaching completion, and at length, about the beginning of 1819, fourteen years after the project had been mentioned to Walter Scott, and about ten years after the book should have appeared, according to Campbell’s original promise, the ‘Essays and Selections of English Poetry’ were published by Mr. Murray. The work was well received. The poet was duly paid for it, and Dr. Beattie, Campbell’s biographer, says he “found himself in the novel position of a man who has money to lay out at interest.” It will be evident, however, from the following letter, that this statement must be received with considerable deduction. His final letter is:—

Mr. T. Campbell to John Murray.

March 28th, 1819. Dear Murray,

After having been so kindly accommodated by you, I am afraid you will think me very troublesome in the present application, but on settling my account with Messrs. Longman & Co.,* I find to my dismay that I have drawn so much from them as to leave me nothing for the payment of many debts which yet remain against me. Before the last two hundred pounds, I had received, according to my memorandum, four hundred on account of the ‘Specimens.’ I have then in all had six. Of the four

* Longman & Co. were the publishers of Campbell’s collected ‘Poems.’

remaining hundred which you have been so liberal as to destine for me, I am not anxious for the one half sooner than it may be perfectly convenient; but if it were not troublesome to you, I should esteem it a very great favour to be allowed to draw upon you in small sums which I owe in London to the amount of two hundred. You would possibly also indulge me so far as to let my creditors present their cheques, which I should give them (in the event of receiving your permission for this arrangement) at your house. If this, however, should be in the least disagreeable, I hope you will frankly tell me so.

I have already thanked you in person, but feel it due to repeat my acknowledgments for your very handsome and liberal allowance for the ‘Specimens’ beyond our formal contract. It would be the most avaricious and unreasonable spirit in me not to be perfectly satisfied with the honourable and gentlemanlike spirit which you have shown in estimating my remuneration. What I have to say in apology for thus applying to you sooner than I meant to have done, cannot possibly be misunderstood as at variance in the slightest degree with my sense of absolute obligation to you; but as an apology for this application I feel it no excuse to state that the time which I devoted to the ‘Specimens’ has involved me very much in debt. I discovered in truth too late that it was a work which none but an author who possessed an independent fortune, or a collection of books such as Mr. Heber’s, should have undertaken; and that it was impossible in the nature of things that it could remunerate either you or myself at the first edition. I saw through my difficulties, however, so far as to anticipate that, having conquered the first edition, it would ultimately be capable of yielding advantage to both in subsequent editions.* It is a great thing to have made myself master of the subject and acquainted with the books that relate to all its most important parts. On the scheme which you suggested regarding the ‘Dramatic Poets,’ I shall have the pleasure of talking with you fully when we meet.

The length of this letter need not frighten you, as it will require but a very short answer. Whatever answer that should be (and I have not the slightest objection to be treated with a frank refusal if my request should be incon-

* The second edition appeared in 1841, in one thick volume, 8vo.

venient), may I only beg that you will have the goodness to send it soon.

With sincerity, I remain, your obliged friend, T. Campbell .

Mr. Murray complied with Mr. Campbell’s request, and paid the money for the cheques presented, as he had desired. It appears that besides the £1000, which was double the sum originally proposed to be paid to Campbell for the ‘Selections,’ Mr. Murray, in October 1819, paid him £200 “for books,” doubtless for those he had purchased for the ‘Collections,’ and which he desired to retain.

We cannot conclude this account of Campbell’s dealing with Murray without referring to an often-quoted story which has for many years sailed under false colours. It was Thomas Campbell who wrote “Now Barabbas was a publisher,” whether in a Bible or otherwise is not authentically recorded, and forwarded it to a friend; but Mr. Murray was not the publisher to whom it referred, nor was Lord Byron, as has been so frequently stated, the author of the joke.

While Campbell’s ‘Selections’ were in slow and gradual progress through the press, Scott was throwing off his poems and novels with extraordinary rapidity; Murray had a share with Blackwood in some of the novels, but a number of other important works demanded his attention. Byron was now at the height of his fame; Southey was producing his works with prolific rapidity. Milman was beginning to issue his poems and dramas; Malthus was publishing his works on Rent and the Corn Laws; and numerous works on Voyages and Travels, on Philosophy, on Classics, on Antiquities, were issuing from the house in Albemarle Street. Murray himself was the head and front of the whole negotiations and corre-spondence. The great burden of the correspondence entailed by the Quarterly Review now fell on him, for Gifford was physically incapable of bearing it. On the other hand, Croker and Barrow were becoming more and more active helpers of the publisher in this branch of his responsibilities.

On one of Gifford’s letters we find these words in Murray’s handwriting: “By mistake I had made his draft for No. 29, £125 instead of £150. I sent the difference with an apology.” Gifford’s answer was as follows:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. August 11th, 1816.

“I have always found you liberal and generous, and have rather feared for you than for myself. I am always safe in your hands. I shall set out to-morrow with my damsel at a very early hour. Phyllis has taken a little lodging for me at Dover, which she says is full. I rejoice in the sale of yesterday, as I shall in any success of yours.”

Gifford was nothing the better for his stay at Dover. Shortly after his return he wrote to Murray from James Street, Buckingham Gate (1st Sept., 1816):—

“I am now suffering from confirmed jaundice. This is quite a novelty to me. My head is as heavy as lead, and I can do nothing. You never saw such a wretch as I appear—green and yellow, and every colour but the right one. They give me a quantity of nauseous stuff, and tell me it is for my good! Two or three days must, I think, decide what I am to hope. Meanwhile I can do nothing.”

Like the creaking gate that hangs long on its hinges, Gifford continued to live, though painfully. He became gradually better, and in the following month Mr. Murray presented him with a chariot, by means of which he might drive about and take exercise in the open air. Gifford answered:—

“I have a thousand thanks to give you for the pains you have taken about the carriage, without which I should only have talked about it, and died of a cold. It came home yesterday, and I went to Fulham in it. It is everything that I could wish, neat, easy, and exceedingly comfortable.”

Gifford’s edition of ‘Ben Jonson’ came out about this time, for he added:

“I am really gratified by your opinion of poor ‘Ben,’ but you must read some of his plays—‘The Fox,’ ‘The Alchemist’—miraculous things—and some of the minor pieces, ‘The Vision of Delight,’ &c.”

Among the other works published by Mr. Murray in 1816 a few more remain to be mentioned. Mr. John Cam Hobhouse, afterwards Lord Broughton, wrote to Murray from Whitton Park as to the publication of his Letters from Paris during the last reign of Napoleon. Mr. Hobhouse had already appeared as an author, principally in his ‘Journey through Albania and other Provinces of Turkey, with Lord Byron,’ which was published in 1812. In the case of his ‘Last Reign of Napoleon’ he informed Mr. Murray that he desired the book to be published without his name, at least at first, but he did not object to the publisher informing any inquirer who was the author.

Mr. Hobhouse to John Murray. January, 1816.

“Tell me when your press is ready, and you shall have the MS. by five or six sheets at a time. I shall correct the press, and I must also premise that when the whole is completed, I must have the liberty of cancelling what sheets I please, for a reason that I now tell you in the strictest confidence: the Letters are to go to Paris previously to publication, and are to be read carefully through by a most intimate friend of mine, who was entirely in the secrets of the late Imperial Ministry, and who will point out any statements as to facts, in which he could from his knowledge make any necessary change.”

The book was published in 2 vols. 8vo., and created a considerable sensation at the time. The first edition was rapidly exhausted, and Hobhouse offered a second to Murray, proposing at the same time to insert his name as author on the title-page.

“If I do,” he said, “I shall present the book to Lord Byron in due form, not for his talents as a poet, but for his qualities as a companion and a friend. I should not write ‘My dear Byron,’ à la Hunt.”*

Meanwhile Mr. D’Israeli was busy with his ‘Inquiry into the Literary and Political Character of James the First.’ He wrote to his publisher as follows:—

Mr. D’Israeli to John Murray.

May, 1816. Dear Murray,

Pray does ‘James’ advance with you? Is there a second sheet? If so I should like to have it. Mr. Gifford will give it a reading no doubt. I am sorry to say every one I have mentioned the subject to revolts from it as a thing quite untenable, and cares nothing about ‘James.’ This does not stop me from finishing. The weather and other things confine me to the house.

Yours always, I. D’I.

Mr. Croker, in the midst of his work at the Admiralty, his articles for the Quarterly and his other literary labours, found time to write his ‘Stories for Children from the

* Leigh Hunt had dedicated his ‘Rimini’ to the noble poet, addressing him as “My dear Byron.”

History of England.’ In sending the later stories Mr. Croker wrote to Mr. Murray:—

The Rt. Hon. J. W. Croker to John Murray.

“I send you seven stories, which, with eleven you had before, brings us down to Richard III., and as I do not intend to come down beyond the Revolution, there remain nine stories still. I think you told me that you gave the first stories to your little boy to read. Perhaps you or Mrs. Murray would be so kind as to make a mark over against such words as he may not have understood, and to favour me with any criticism the child may have made, for on this occasion I should prefer a critic of 6 years old to one of 60.”

Thus John Murray’s son, the present Mr. Murray, was early initiated into the career of reading for the press. When the book came out it achieved a great success, and set the model for Walter Scott in his charming ‘Tales of my Grandfather.’

It may be mentioned that ‘Croker’s Stories for Children’ were published on the system of division of profits. Long after, when Mr. Murray was in correspondence with an author who wished him to pay a sum of money down before he had even seen the manuscript, the publisher recommended the author to publish his book on a division of profits, in like manner as Hallam, Milman, Mahon, Croker, and others had done. “Under this system,” he said, “I have been very successful. For Mr. Croker’s ‘Stories from the History of England,’ selling for 2s. 6d., if I had offered the small sum of twenty guineas, he would have thought it liberal. However, I printed it to divide profits, and he has already received from me the moiety of £1400. You will perhaps be startled at my assertion; for woeful experience convinces me that not more than one publication in fifty has a sale sufficient to defray its expenses.”

Sir John Malcolm was a great friend of Murray’s. When home from India in 1816, he dined often at Albemarle Street, where he made the acquaintance of Lord Byron, Campbell, Rogers, Hallam, and others. Murray published his ‘History of Persia,’ one of his greatest works. On his return to India, the ship in which he had embarked was lying in the Downs, waiting for a fair wind down Channel, when he wrote the following parting letter:—

Sir John Malcolm to John Murray.

Deal, October 16th, 1816. Dear Murray,

I have waited to the last, that I might condense all my say into one short sheet. To begin, I have had every reason to be satisfied with your conduct towards me on all occasions, and, what is more, I am quite convinced I must have always the same feelings on this score, as the motives and principles on which you act can never give rise to any other. I was as surprised as gratified when I went on board the Miles, at your handsome present of amusement for the passage, and sincerely thank you. I shall neither forget you nor Mr. Gifford. The packet for the latter will be sent from the Cape, if it please God we reach that port. Colonel Worsley has the work prepared for the printer. It is very curious to all who take any interest in India, and to officers in India quite an invaluable work.

The latter portion of the letter probably refers to his ‘Instructions to Young Officers,’ which he had left ready for the press.

The success of Scott’s, and especially of Byron’s Poems, called into existence about this time a vast array of would-be poets, male and female, and from all ranks and professions. Some wrote for fame, some for money; but all were agreed on one point, namely that if Mr. Murray would undertake the publication of the poems the authors’ fame was secured: “that their works would excite the admiration of the world,” or that “the author would become independent and celebrated throughout Great Britain.”

Mr. Murray was inundated with productions of this kind, but could usually dispose of them without troubling his literary advisers. The authors of these rejected addresses did not always take the publisher’s decision in good part, and not a few retaliated by round, personal abuse.

This, however, was not generally the case. When Miss Jane Porter sent him a poem—‘Lord Ronald, by a Border Minstrel,’—and asked him to peruse it with a view to publication, he informed the lady (July 12th, 1817) that he had “waded through seven hundred rejected poems in the course of a year.” The lady assented to his view, and willingly took back the manuscript.

When Mr. Murray was in doubt about any manuscript, he usually conferred with Croker, Campbell, or Gifford, who always displayed the utmost kindness in helping him with their opinions. Croker was usually short and pithy. Of one poem he said: “Trash—the dullest stuff I ever read.” This was enough to ensure the condemnation of the manuscript. Campbell, when sending his “confidential opinion on the poem of ‘Woman,’”* said, “In my opinion, though there are many excellent lines in it, the poem is not such as will warrant a great sum being speculated upon it. But, as it is short, I think the public, not the author or publisher, will be in fault if it does not sell one edition.”

Of a poem sent for his opinion, Gifford wrote:—

“Honestly, the MS. is totally unfit for the press. Do not deceive yourself: this MS. is not the production of a

* Most probably Mrs. Hemans’ ‘Records of Woman.’

male. A man may write as great nonsense as a woman, and even greater; but a girl may pass through those execrable abodes of ignorance, called boarding schools, without learning whether the sun sets in the East or in the West, whereas a boy can hardly do this, even at Parson’s Green.”

The following letter may be given from John Wilson, then an advocate at Edinburgh, afterwards Professor of Moral Philosophy, relating to the second edition of his ‘City of the Plague’:—

Mr. John Wilson to John Murray. December 18th, 1815.

“Circumstances connected with my professional duties have prevented me from returning an answer to your letter. . . . I have by this day’s mail-coach sent to you the only copy which I possess of the ‘City of the Plague.’ I have relinquished the idea of publishing a larger volume, and now offer you that single dramatic poem by itself, and, if you choose, a few smaller ones of a different character, to make up the volume to 170 or 180 pages. If you think the Poem worth £100, and a dozen copies to the author, the copyright of it is yours; if not, you will return me the manuscript as soon as possible. You will peruse it yourself, and request Lord Byron to give you his opinion. I do not mention his name from believing that he entertains a favourable idea of my poetical character, as indeed I have some reason to think the contrary. But as he is a man of power and genius, I know that in his hands my poem will have the certainty of a fair trial by a good judge.”

It appears that Murray declined Wilson’s offer of his poem. A few days later Murray communicated his views to Blackwood of Edinburgh, when Blackwood replied:—

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. January 1st, 1816.

“Wilson is a very extraordinary kind of person: he is a man of strong mind and powerful talents, but so outré and unsettled, that one never can be sure of his having taken sufficient pains upon anything. You have probably done right in declining his poem, though I have no doubt of there being a great deal of genius in it; and that, if he were to take more pains, he is perfectly capable of producing a beautiful and interesting poem.”

This was the Edinburgh publisher’s view—no doubt a true one. Yet John Wilson (afterwards known as Christopher North) proved one of his best friends,—especially in the establishment of Blackwood's Magazine; with which Murray himself was for a time connected.

James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, was another of Murray’s Scottish correspondents, with whom he had some interesting intercourse. The publication of ‘The Queen’s Wake’ in 1813 immediately brought Hogg into connection with the leading authors and publishers of the day. Hogg sent a copy of the volume to Lord Byron, his “brother poet,” whose influence he desired to enlist on behalf of a work which Hogg wished Murray to publish.

The poem which the Ettrick Shepherd referred to was ‘The Pilgrims of the Sun,’ and the result of Lord Byron’s conversation with Mr. Murray was, that the latter undertook to publish Hogg’s works. The first letter from him to Murray was dated “Grieve and Scott’s, Edinburgh, 26th December, 1814,” though the post-mark shows it was not delivered until the 12th of January, 1815.

Mr. Hogg to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

What the deuce have you made of my excellent poem that you are never publishing it, while I am starving for want of money, and cannot even afford a Christmas goose to my friends? I think I may say of you as the country-man said to his friend, who asked him when his wife had her accouchement, “Troth, man,” said he, “she’s aye gaun aboot yet, and I think she’ll be gaun to keep this ane till hirsel a thegither.” However, I dare say that, like the said wife, you have your reasons for it; but of all things a bookseller’s reasons suit worst with a poet’s board. I should be glad to know if you got safely across the Tweed and what number of the little family group you lost by the way betwixt Edinburgh and London, and how everything in the literary world is going on with you since that time. . .. Be sure to let me hear from you, and tell me how you are likely to come on with the copies of ‘The Queen’s Wake’ which I sent you. It has been a losing business, and you must get me as much for it as you can. I hope you will soon find occasion for sending me an offer for a fifth edition. I am interrupted, so farewell for the present. God bless you!

James Hogg .

A few days later Hogg again wrote a long letter, complaining that Blackwood’s name was placed above Murray’s in the advertisement of his book. This was followed by a third epistle.

Mr. Hogg to John Murray.

January 21st, 1815. My dear Sir,

I wrote to you a few days ago terribly chagrined about the advertisement. You have now explained it, and above all things in this world, I love a man who tells me the whole simple truth of his heart, as you have done, and I freely forgive you, for if I had thought the same way I would have acted the same way. But I cannot help smiling at your London Critics. They must read it over again. I had the best advice in the three kingdoms on the poem—men whose opinions, even given in a dream, I would not exchange for all the critics in England, before I ever proposed it for publication. I will risk my fame on it to all eternity. You may be mistaken, and you may be misled, my dear Murray, but as long as you tell me the simple truth as freely, you and I will be friends. Will you soon need an edition of ‘The Wake’? I think you should. Will our ‘Repository’ not go on? I have at least a volume of very superior poetry.

Yours very truly, James Hogg .

The ‘Repository,’ which Hogg refers to in his letter, was intended to be a miscellaneous collection, edited by himself, of pieces written by the principal popular poets of the day. He afterwards altered the proposed name to ‘The Thistle and the Rose,’ or ‘The Poetic Mirror,’ and requested Byron and Scott to write for the ‘Miscellany,’ but they both eventually declined his proposition.

Mr. Hogg to John Murray. March 15th, 1815.

“I want Lord Byron’s promised assistance. If I had but thirty lines from him, I would be content; but I cannot consent to put the book to press without something from him. Though it would be a material loss to me to want his name engraved on ‘The Thistle and Rose,’ yet I would not for the world pester or dun him. Think seriously of these things, my dear friend; tell me, as usual, freely what you think; the conditions shall always be of your own making, for though I am somewhat needy I am not greedy. . . . The Duke of Buccleuch has been so kind as, all unsolicited, to give me a farm on Yarrow, rent free for life. I have that farm to stock, and a cottage to build this summer; so that you need not think it strange that I would like to raise a few pounds as soon as I can. However, do not let any casualty induce you to enter upon anything that appears contrary to your interest; for, as you shrewdly hinted formerly, whatever is against that will prove much more against mine finally. But let me hear from you soon. . . . ”

Another letter followed (31st March, 1815), requesting an answer—wishing to know what number of copies of ‘The Queen’s Wake’ were on hand. At length, Murray answered:—

John Murray to Mr. Hogg.

London, April 10th, 1815. My Dear Friend,

I entreat you not to ascribe to inattention the delay which has occurred in my answer to your kind and interesting letter. Much more, I beg you not for a moment to entertain a doubt about the interest which I take in your writings, or the exertions which I shall ever make to promote their sale and popularity. . . . They are selling every day, and I have no doubt that they will both be out of print in two months. It is really no less absurd than malicious to suppose that I do not advertise, and by every other means strive to sell these works in which I am so much interested. Respecting the collection of poems, I really think Lord Byron may, in a little time, be relied upon as a contributor. He continues to be exceedingly friendly to you in all respects, and it will be reciprocity of kindness in you to make large allowance for such a man. Newly married—consider the entire alteration which it has occasioned in his habits and occupations, or the flood of distracting engagements and duties of all kinds which have attended this change.

He has just come to town, and is in every respect very greatly improved. I wish you had been with me on Friday last when I had the honour of presenting Scott to him for the first time. This I consider as a commemorative event in literary history, and I sincerely regret that you were not present. I wish you had dashed up to London at once, and if you will do so immediately I will undertake to board you if you will get a bed, which can easily be obtained in my neighbourhood.

Could you not write a poetical epistle, a lively one, to Lady Byron—she is a good mathematician, writes poetry, understands French, Italian, Latin and Greek—and tell her that as she has prevented Lord B. from fulfilling his promise to you, she is bound to insist upon its execution, and to add a poem of her own to it by way of interest.

* * * * *

I have forgotten to tell you that Gifford tells me that he would receive, with every disposition to favour it, any critique which you like to send of new Scottish works. If I had been aware of it in time I certainly would have invited your remarks on ‘Mannering.’ Our article is not good and our praise is by no means adequate, I allow, but I suspect you very greatly overrate the novel. “Meg Merrilies” is worthy of Shakespeare, but all the rest of the novel might have been written by Scott’s brother or any other body. Adieu for the present: pray write to me immediately to tell me that you forgive my silence, and believe me, dear Sir,

Your faithful friend, John Murray .

Hogg’s reply was as follows:—

Mr. Hogg to John Murray.

April 17th, 1815, My dear Sir,

On reading your kind and enthusiastic letter, I determined to come to London and join the illustrious bards, but to my great grief I find I cannot accomplish it. I enter to my farm at May-day, which is fast approaching, and at that time I must be in Yarrow; and besides I have not money to spare. I am, however, much vexed and disappointed because I cannot accept your warm invitation; and I am only comforted by the hope that by-and-by I may be enabled to appear among you to more advantage than I could have done at present . I am obliged to you for your fair statement of the sale. Such a thing lets one see precisely what they may expect, and when to expect it. I never had the slightest apprehension that you were dilatory or careless about pushing the works, and I do not know how I came to mention it. . . .

If Southey’s ‘Roderick’ is not bespoke, I should be very happy to review it, but I must warn you that I am very partial to that bard’s productions. It would be a most interesting thing to have a small piece of Lady Byron’s in ‘The Thistle and Rose,’ and the thing which you propose for me to do is a good subject both for humour and compliment. But there is nothing I am so afraid of as teazing or pestering my superiors for favours. Lord B. knows well enough that without his support at first, the thing will not go on, and as I am sure he is a kind soul, I think I will for the present trust to himself.

Most truly, James Hogg .

Murray sent the Shepherd some “timeous” help, to which Hogg replied—still from Edinburgh—by asking a novel favour; no less than that Mr. and Mrs. Murray should look out for a wife for him!

Mr. Hogg to John Murray.

May 7th, 1815. My dear Sir,

I thank you with all my heart for the little timeous supply you have lent me at present. I did intend shortly to have asked from you what little you could spare from the copies of ‘The Wake’ sold, but I had no thought that the final payment of ‘The Pilgrims’ would have been made to me sooner than November. You are the prince of booksellers, if people would but leave you to your own judgment and natural generous disposition.

I leave Edinburgh on Thursday for my little farm on Yarrow. I will have a confused summer, for I have as yet no home that I can dwell in; but I hope by-and-by to have some fine fun there with you, fishing in Saint Mary’s Loch and the Yarrow, eating bull-trout, singing songs, and drinking whisky. This little possession is what I stood much in need of—a habitation among my native hills was what of all the world I desired; and if I had a little more money at command, I would just be as happy a man as I know of; but that is an article of which I am ever in want. I wish you or Mrs. Murray would speer me out a good wife with a few thousands. I dare say there is many a romantic girl about London who would think it a fine ploy to become a Yarrow Shepherdess!

Believe me, dear Murray, Very sincerely yours, James Hogg .

Here, for the present, we come to an end of the Shepherd’s letters; but we shall find him turning up again, and Mr. Murray still continuing his devoted friend and adviser.

CHAPTER XV. LORD BYRON’S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY—continued.

On January 2nd, 1815, Lord Byron was married to Miss Milbanke, and during the honeymoon, while he was residing at Seaham, the residence of his father-in-law Sir Ralph Milbanke, he wrote to Murray desiring him to make occasional enquiry at his chambers in the Albany to see if they were kept in proper order.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

February 17th, 1815. My Lord,

I have paid frequent attention to your wish that I should ascertain if all things appeared to be safe in your chambers, and I am happy in being able to report that the whole establishment carries an appearance of security, which is confirmed by the unceasing vigilance of your faithful and frigid Duenna [Mrs. Mule].

Every day I have been in expectation of receiving a copy of ‘Guy Mannering,’ of which the reports of a friend of mine, who has read the first two volumes, is such as to create the most extravagant expectations of an extraordinary combination of wit, humour and pathos. I am certain of one of the first copies, and this you may rely upon receiving with the utmost expedition.

I hear many interesting letters read to me from the Continent, and one in particular from Mr. Fazakerly, describing his interview of four hours with Bonaparte, was particularly good. He acknowledged at once to the poisoning of the sick prisoners in Egypt; they had the plague, and would have communicated it to the rest of his army if he had carried them on with him, and he had only to determine if he should leave them to a cruel death by the Turks, or to an easy one by poison. When asked his motive for becoming a Mahomedan, he replied that there were great political reasons for this, and gave several; but he added, the Turks would not admit me at first unless I submitted to two indispensable ceremonies. . . . They agreed at length to remit the first and to commute the other for a solemn vow, for every offence to give expiation by the performance of some good action. “Oh, gentlemen,” says he, “for good actions, you know you may command me,” and his first good action was to put to instant death an hundred of their priests, whom he suspected of intrigues against him. Not aware of his summary justice, they sent a deputation to beg the lives of these people on the score of his engagement. He answered that nothing would have made him so happy as this opportunity of showing his zeal for their religion; but that they had arrived too late; their friends had been dead nearly an hour.

He asked Lord Ebrington of which party he was, in Politics. “The Opposition.” “The Opposition? Then can your Lordship tell me the reason why the Opposition are so unpopular in England?” With something like presence of mind on so delicate a question, Lord Ebrington instantly replied: “Because, sir, we always insisted upon it, that you would be successful in Spain.”

Walter Scott sent you a copy of the ‘Lord of the Isles;’ but as it arrived at least a month after I had forwarded a ‘Mail Coach’ copy to you, I took that copy in exchange (there were no writings in it), and thus balanced my account. There are not two opinions about it being his worst poem.

I am delaying the publication of our edition in four volumes only until you find a leisure moment to strike off the dedication to your friend Mr. Hobhouse, who still thinks that it is not precisely the same thing to have music made to one’s poems, and to write poetry for music; and I advise you most conscientiously to abide by the determination of Mr. Hobhouse’s good sense.

Mrs. Wilmot’s tragedy is to be brought forward at Drury Lane immediately after Easter.

I have the honour to remain, my Lord, Your faithful Servant, John Murray .

During the spring and summer of 1815 Byron was a frequent visitor at Albemarle Street, and in April, as has been already recorded, he first met Walter Scott in Murray’s drawing room.

In March, Lord and Lady Byron took up their residence at 13, Piccadilly Terrace. The following letter is undated, but was probably written in the autumn of 1815.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

My Lord,

The enclosed note will explain the contents of the accompanying volume in sheets: which if returned to me, I will put into such dress as your taste shall direct. I picked up, the other day, some of Napoleon’s own writing paper, all the remainder of which has been burnt; it has his portrait and eagle, as you will perceive by holding a sheet to the light either of sun or candle: so I thought I would take a little for you, hoping that you will just write me a poem upon any twenty-four quires of it in return. I beg the favour of you to offer my thanks to Lady Byron for some game which came opportunely to fatten Southey, Sotheby, and Malcolm, with sundry other Poeticals and Historicals, who dined with me on Thursday. I am really more grieved than I can venture to say, that I so rarely have an opportunity of seeing you; but I trust that you are well.

With compliments, I remain, my Lord, Your faithful Servant, John Murray .

By the autumn of 1815 Lord Byron found himself involved in pecuniary embarrassments, which had, indeed, existed before his marriage, but were now considerably increased and demanded immediate settlement. His first thought was to part with his books, though they did not form a very valuable collection. He mentioned the matter to a book collector, who conferred with other dealers on the subject. The circumstances coming to the ears of Mr. Murray, he at once communicated with Lord Byron, and forwarded him a cheque for £1500, with the assurance that an equal sum should be at his service in the course of a few weeks, offering, at the same time, to dispose of all the copyrights of his poems for his Lordship’s use.

Lord Byron could not fail to be affected by this generous offer, and whilst returning the cheque, he wrote:—

November 14th, 1815.

“Your present offer is a favour which I would accept from you, if I accepted such from any man . . . The circumstances which induce me to part with my books, though sufficiently, are not immediately, pressing. I have made up my mind to this, and there’s an end. Had I been disposed to trespass upon your kindness in this way, it would have been before now; but I am not sorry to have an opportunity of declining it, as it sets my opinion of you, and indeed of human nature, in a different light from that in which I have been accustomed to consider it.”

Meanwhile Lord Byron had completed his ‘Siege of Corinth’ and ‘Parisina,’ and sent the packet containing them to Mr. Murray. They had been copied in the legible hand of Lady Byron. On receiving the poems Mr. Murray wrote to Lord Byron as follows:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

December, 1815. My Lord,

I tore open the packet you sent me, and have found in it a Pearl. It is very interesting, pathetic, beautiful—do you know, I would almost say moral. I am really writing to you before the billows of the passions you excited have subsided. I have been most agreeably disappointed (a word I cannot associate with the poem) at the story, which—what you hinted to me and wrote—had alarmed me; and I should not have read it aloud to my wife if my eye had not traced the delicate hand that transcribed it. This poem is all action and interest: not a line but what is necessary. Now, I do think that you should fragmentize the first hundred, and condense the last thirty, of ‘Corinth,’ and then you have, in words of the highest compliment, two poems (as Mr. H. said) as good as any you have written. I admire the fabrication of the “big Tear,”* which is very fine—much larger, by the way, than Shakespeare’s. I do think you thought of Ney in casting off his bandage. The close is exquisite: and you know that all’s well that ends well—with which I stop. I will answer for Mr. Gifford: and, to conclude (a bargain), say that they are mine for the enclosed, and add to the obligations of,

My Lord, your faithful Servant, John Murray .

Mr. Murray enclosed to Lord Byron two notes, amounting to a thousand guineas, for the copyright of the poems, but Lord Byron refused the notes, declaring that the sum was too great.

“Your offer,” he answered (Jan. 3rd, 1816) “is liberal in the extreme, and much more than the poems can possibly be worth; but I cannot accept it, and will not. You are most welcome to them as additions to the collected volumes, without any demand or expectation on my part whatever. . . . I am very glad that the handwriting was a favourable omen of the morale of the piece; but you must not trust to that, as my copyist would write out anything I desired in all the ignorance of innocence—I hope, however, in this instance, with no great peril to either. . .. I have enclosed your draft torn, for fear of accident by the way—I wish you would not throw temptation in mine. It is not from a disdain of the universal idol, nor from a present superfluity of his treasures, I can assure you, that I refuse to worship him; but what is right is right, and must not yield to circumstances.”

The money, therefore, which Murray thought the copyright of the ‘Siege of Corinth’ and ‘Parisina’ was worth,

* ‘Parisina,’ Stanza xiv.

remained untouched in the publisher’s hands. It was afterwards suggested, by Mr. Rogers and Sir James Mackintosh, to Lord Byron, that a portion of it (£600) might be applied to the relief of Mr. Godwin, the author of ‘An Enquiry into Political Justice,’ who was then in difficulties; and Lord Byron himself proposed that the remainder should be divided between Mr. Maturin and Mr. Coleridge. This proposal caused the deepest vexation to Mr. Murray, who made the following remonstrance against such a proceeding.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

Albemarle Street, Monday, 4 o’clock. My Lord.

I did not like to detain you this morning, but I confess to you that I came away impressed with a belief that you had already reconsidered this matter, as it refers to me. Your Lordship will pardon me if I cannot avoid looking upon it as a species of cruelty, after what has passed, to take from me so large a sum—offered with no reference to the marketable value of the poems, but out of personal friendship and gratitude alone,—to cast it away on the wanton and ungenerous interference of those who cannot enter into your Lordship’s feelings for me, upon persons who have so little claim upon you, and whom those who so interested themselves might more decently and honestly enrich from their own funds, than by endeavouring to be liberal at the cost of another, and by forcibly resuming from me a sum which you had generously and nobly resigned.

I am sure you will do me the justice to believe that I would strain every nerve in your service, but it is actually heartbreaking to throw away my earnings on others. I am no rich man, abounding, like Mr. Rogers, in superfluous thousands, but working hard for independence, and what would be the most grateful pleasure to me if likely to be useful to you personally, becomes merely painful if it causes me to work for others for whom I can have no such feelings.

This is a most painful subject for me to address you upon, and I am ill able to express my feelings about it. I commit them entirely to your liberal construction with a reference to your knowledge of my character.

I have the honour to be, &c., John Murray .

This letter was submitted to Gifford before it was despatched, and he wrote:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

I have made a scratch or two, and the letter now expresses my genuine sentiments on the matter. But should you not see Rogers?

It is evident that Lord Byron is a little awkward about this matter, and his officious friends have got him into a most unlordly scrape, from which they can only relieve him by treading back their steps. The more I consider their conduct, the more I am astonished at their impudence. A downright robbery is honourable to it. If you see Rogers, do not be shy to speak: he trembles at report, and here is an evil one for him.

Faithfully yours, Wm. Gifford.

In the end Lord Byron was compelled by the increasing pressure of his debts to accept the sum offered by Murray and use it for his own purposes.

To revert to the poems themselves: Lord Byron, in sending the MSS. of the ‘Siege of Corinth’ and ‘Parisina’ to Murray, requested him to consult Gifford, and authorized the latter to strike out or alter any of the lines at his pleasure. The following is Murray’s letter to Lord Byron, after Gifford had read over the poem:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

“I assure you my conscience has not been without its compunctions, at not calling or writing, although incessant business and interruptions have prevented both. Mr. Gifford has read, with great delight, the ‘Siege of Corinth,’ in which—from the apparition, which is exquisitely conceived and supported, to the end—he says, you have equalled your best: the battle in the streets, and the catastrophe, all worthy of their author. He makes three critical remarks: that we are rather too long in coming to the interesting part; the scene immediately before the apparition is rather too frightful; and there are perhaps too many minutiæ after the catastrophe—all very easy of improvement if you feel their force, which certainly I do: and, then, it is as beautiful a little poem as ever was written. You would have received a proof before this had I not been anxious to preserve the MSS.; but a portion will be sent this night, and the rest on Monday. Coleridge is wild and fanciful, and will make much talk. I will gladly make a bidding when I can have the remainder,* as well to judge of quantity as quality. I am very anxious to receive Mr. Hunt’s poem [’Rimini’], of which your opinion is perfectly satisfactory. I should have put up for you the sheets of Sir John Malcolm’s ‘Persia,’ which will not be published till December, but I am anxious that you should have the first reading of it, and I will give you a better copy hereafter, with twenty plates. Mr. Ward was with me yesterday, and inquired most warmly about you. We are filling now: if you are out about four, will you look in and see us. Pardon my haste.

“J. M.”

The following is Mr. Gifford’s note about the ‘Siege of Corinth’:—

“It is a dreadful picture: Caravaggio outdone in his own way. I have hinted at the removal of one couplet: if its sense be wanted, it may be compressed into one of the other lines. Its powers are unquestionable; but can any human being deserve such a delineation? I keep my old opinion of Lord Byron. He may be what he will. Why will he not will to be the first of poets and of men. I

* This may have related to ‘Christabel’—a poem greatly admired by Byron, but never finished.

lament bitterly to see a great mind run to seed, and waste itself in rank growth.

“Ever yours, “W. G.”

Mr. D’Israeli was greatly affected by the ‘Siege of Corinth’; shortly after its perusal, he wrote to Mr. Murray.

Mr. I. D’Israeli to John Murray.

December, 1815. Dear M.,

I am anxious to tell you, that I find myself, this morning, so strangely affected by the perusal of the poem last night, that I feel that it is one which stands quite by itself. I know of nothing of the kind which is worthy of comparison with it. There is no scene, no incident, nothing so marvellous in pathos and terror in Homer, or any bard of antiquity. It impresses one with such a complete feeling of utter desolation, mental and scenical, that when Minotti touched that last spark which scattered its little world into air, he did not make it more desolate than the terrible and affecting energy of the poet’s imagination. But Homer had not such a sort of spirit as the mistress of Alp—he had wolves, and vultures, and dogs; but Homer has never conveyed his reader into a vast Golgotha, nor harrowed us with the vulture flapping the back of the gorged wolf, nor the dogs: the terror, the truth, and the loneliness of that spot will never be erased from my memory. Alp by the side of the besieged wall; that ghost-like manner of giving him a minute’s reflection by showing one of the phenomena of nature—that is a stroke of a spirit’s character never before imagined, and can never be surpassed. And after the most sublime incident that ever poet invented, still to have the power to agitate the mind, by that eagle who flies nearer the sun, mistaking the cloud of destruction for night; in a word, I could not abstain from assuring you, that I never read any poem that exceeded in power this, to me, most extraordinary production. I do not know where I am to find any which can excite the same degree of emotion.

Yours always, I. D’I.

The following correspondence relates to ‘Parisina’:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

My Lord,

Though I have not written to you, you have occupied my thoughts. Gifford declares to me that you never surpassed ‘Parisina.’ I enclose Ward’s note after reading the ‘Siege of Corinth.’ I lent him ‘Parisina’ also, and he called yesterday to express his mind at your hesitation about their merits. He was particularly struck with the “Son’s reply to Azo.” I lent Parisina to Mr. Hay (Mr. Wilmot’s friend) last night, and I enclose his note. I send the proof. If you are sure that you can improve it, do; otherwise, touch it not. I will send a revise of ‘Corinth’ to-night or to-morrow. Gifford thinks, if the narrative were put into the mouth of the Turk (if it didn’t choke him), would give it additional interest. I hope your Lordship is well.

J. M.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

Albemarle Street, January 4th, 1816. My Lord,

I send the manuscript, of which Gifford says: “I read the manuscript, and with great pleasure. It is indeed very good, and the plan is ingenious. The poetry is in the best manner.” Nothing can be more ingeniously framed and more interestingly told than this story. I liked it ten times better on the third reading than on the first. I read it last night to D’Israeli and his family, and they were perfectly overcome by it. The gradual madness of Parisina, the preparation and death of Hugo, and the subsequent description of Azo, by which, after all the story is over, you recreate a new and most tender interest, are all most attractive and touching, and in your best manner. In these matters I always liken myself to Molière’s “old woman”; and when I am pleased I know our readers will be pleased. Where you can strengthen expressions or lines, I entreat you to do so, but otherwise nothing can be added or retrenched for its improvement, though it is a gem truly worth polishing. These two tales form an invaluable contrast, and display the variety of your power. For myself, I am really more interested by the effect of the story of ‘Parisina’ than by either, I think, of the former tales. I will call upon you from two to three. Depend upon it you beat them all; you have allowed plenty of time for any to take the field and equal your last ‘Lara,’ which I find, from the opinion of Rose and Ellis, is thought by poets to be your best poem. I really am convinced that there is not any volume, the production of one man, to be picked out that will be so interesting and universally popular as that which your six tales would make. Formed upon human passions, they can never pass away.

John Murray .

It is not necessary here to touch upon the circumstances of Lord Byron’s separation from his wife; suffice it to say that early in 1816 he determined to leave England, and resolved, as he had before contemplated doing, to sell off his books and furniture. He committed the arrangements to Mr. Murray, through Mr. Hanson, his solicitor, in Bloomsbury Square. A few months before, when Lord Byron was in straits for money, Mr. Hanson communicated with Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mr. Hanson to John Murray.

November 23rd, 1815.

Mr. Hanson’s compliments to Mr. Murray. He has seen Lord Byron, and his Lordship has no objection to his Library being taken at a valuation. Mr. Hanson submits to Mr. Murray whether it would not be best to name one respectable bookseller to set a value on them. In the meantime, Mr. Hanson has written to Messrs. Crook and Armstrong, in whose hands the books now are, not to proceed further in the sale.

On the 28th of December, 1815, Mr. Murray received the following valuation:—

“Mr. Cochrane presents respectful compliments to Mr. Murray, and begs to inform him that upon carefully inspecting the books in Skinner Street, he judges the fair value of them to be £450.”

Mr. Murray sent Lord Byron a bill of £500 for the books as a temporary accommodation. But the books were traced and attached by the sheriff. On the 6th of March, 1816, Lord Byron wrote to Murray:—

“I send to you to-day for this reason: the books you purchased are again seized, and, as matters stand, had much better be sold at once by public auction. I wish to see you to-morrow to return your bill for them, which, thank Heaven, is neither due nor paid. That part, so far as you are concerned, being settled (which it can be, and shall be, when I see you to-morrow), I have no further delicacy about the matter. This is about the tenth execution in as many months; so I am pretty well hardened; but it is fit I should pay the forfeit of my forefathers’ extravagance as well as my own; and whatever my faults may be, I suppose they will be pretty well expiated in time—or eternity.”

A letter was next received by Mr. Murray’s solicitor, Mr. Turner, from Mr. Gunn, to the following effect:—

Mr. Gunn to Mr. Turner.

March 16th, 1816. Sir,

Mr. Constable, the plaintiff’s attorney, has written to say he will indemnify the sheriff to sell the books under the execution; as such, we must decline taking your indemnity.

The result was, that Lord Byron, on the 22nd of March, paid to Crook and Armstrong £231 15s., “being the amount of three levies, poundage, and expenses,” and also £25 13s. 6d., the amount of Crook and Armstrong’s account. Crook and Armstrong settled with Levy, the Jew, who had lent Byron money; and also with the officer, who had been in possession twenty-three days, at 5s. a day. The books were afterwards sold by Mr. Evans at his house, 26, Pall Mall, on the 5th of April, 1816, and the following day. The catalogue describes them as “A collection of books, late the property of a nobleman, about to leave England on a tour.”

Mr. Murray was present at the sale, and bought a selection of books for Mrs. Leigh, for Mr. Rogers, and for Mr. J. C. Hobhouse, as well as for himself. He bought the large screen, with the portraits of actors and pugilists, which is still at Albemarle Street. There was also a silver cup and cover, nearly thirty ounces in weight, elegantly chased. These articles realised £723 12s. 6d., and after charging the costs, commission, and Excise duty, against the sale of the books, the balance was handed over to Lord Byron.

The ‘Sketch from Private Life’ was one of the most bitter and satirical things Byron had ever written. In sending it to Mr. Murray (March 30th, 1816), he wrote: “I send you my last night’s dream, and request to have fifty copies struck off for private distribution. I wish Mr. Gifford to look at it; it is from life.” Afterwards, when Lord Byron called upon Mr. Murray, he said: “I could not get to sleep last night, but lay rolling and tossing about until this morning, when I got up and wrote that; and it is very odd, Murray, after doing that, I went to bed again, and never slept sounder in my life.”

Mr. Murray showed the verses to Rogers, Frere, and Stratford Canning. In communicating the result to Byron, he said:—

“They have all seen and admired the lines: they agree that you have produced nothing better; that satire is your forte; and so in each class as you choose to adopt it. Mr. F. suggests that in the last line weltering does not accord with hang on high, which precedes it. I have sent a copy to Mr. Gifford.”

Lord Byron answered:—

“I doubt about weltering. We say ‘weltering in blood,’ but do they not also say ‘weltering in the wind,’ ‘weltering on a gibbet’? I have no dictionary; so look. In the meantime, I have put ‘festering,’ which, perhaps, in any case is the best word of the two. Shakespeare has it often, and I do not think it is too strong for the figure in this thing. Quick! quick! quick! quick!”

The lines were printed and sent to Lord Byron. But before publishing them, Mr. Murray took advice of his special literary adviser and solicitor, Mr. Sharon Turner. His reply was as follows:—

Mr. Turner to John Murray.

April 3rd, 1816.

There are some expressions in the Poem that I think are libellous, and the severe tenor of the whole would induce a jury to find them to be so. The question only remains, to whom it is applicable. It certainly does not itself name the person. But the legal pleadings charge that innuendo must mean such a person. How far evidence extrinsic to the work might be brought or received to show that the author meant a particular person, I will not pretend to affirm. Some cases have gone so far on this point that I should not think it safe to risk. And if a libel, it is a libel not only by the author, but by the printer, the publisher, and every circulator.

I am, dear Murray, yours most faithfully, Shn. Turner.

Mr. Murray did not publish the poems, but after their appearance in the newspapers, they were announced by many booksellers as “Poems by Lord Byron on his Domestic Circumstances.” Among others, Constable printed and published them, whereupon Blackwood, as Murray’s agent in Edinburgh, wrote to him, requesting the suppression of the verses, and threatening proceedings. Constable, in reply, said he had no wish to invade literary property, but the verses had come to him without either author’s name, publisher’s name, or printer’s name, and that there was no literary property in publications to which neither author’s, publisher’s, nor printer’s name was attached. Blackwood could proceed no farther. In his letter to Murray (April 17th, 1816), he wrote:—

“I have distributed copies of ‘Fare Thee Well’ and ‘A Sketch’ to Dr. Thomas Brown, Walter Scott, and Professor Playfair. One cannot read ‘Fare Thee Well’ without crying. The other is ‘vigorous hate,’ as you say. Its power is really terrible; one’s blood absolutely creeps while reading it.”

Byron left England in April, 1816 and during his travels he corresponded frequently with Mr. Murray, partly by means of the letters which are familiar to every reader of Moore’s ‘Life,’ partly by the hand of his secretary, Dr. Polidori:—

Dr. Polidori to John Murray.

July 10th, 1816. Dear Sir,

Your letter to me was received both by myself and Lord Byron with great pleasure. Yours of the day following has not arrived, which is a pity, as in your last you talk of a journal in it which, to Lord Byron—who hears nothing but reports of Insurrection in the East, Rebellions in the West, and Murders North and South—would be a great gratification. Lord Liverpool resigned, Lord Wellington blown up, and half-a-dozen greatly lettered names—with some pleasant accidents after them—is all we have to keep us newspaperly alive. We are also quite ignorant of all literary news; something of some poems by Coleridge, Maturin’s play, ‘The Antiquary,’ and ‘Glenarvon’ have reached us. Since it has given you hopes of entering well into the literary world next winter, that ‘Childe Harold’ has got another canto of 118 stanzas, you will be more pleased to hear of another poem of 400 lines called ‘The Castle of Chillon’; the feelings of a third of three brothers in prison on the banks of the Geneva Lake. I think it very beautiful, containing more of his tender than of his sombre poetry. Indeed ‘Childe Harold’ himself is a little altered—more philosophic and less blackly misanthropic than before. . . . Lord Byron desires me to say that it was my neglectful hurry on writing my last that hindered me repeating to you his compliments, which he now sends you, thrice repeated.

The MSS. of the third canto of ‘Childe Harold’ and ‘The Prisoner of Chillon’ duly reached the publisher. Mr. Murray acknowledged the MSS.:—

Mr. Murray to Lord Byron.

September 12th, 1816. My Lord,

I have rarely addressed you with more pleasure than upon the present occasion. I was thrilled with delight yesterday by the announcement of Mr. Shelley with the MS. of ‘Childe Harold.’ I had no sooner got the quiet possession of it than, trembling with auspicious hope about it, I carried it direct to Mr. Gifford. He has been exceedingly ill with jaundice, and unable to write or do anything. He was much pleased by my attention. I called upon him to-day. He said he was unable to leave off last night, and that he had sat up until he had finished every line of the canto. It had actually agitated him into a fever, and he was much worse when I called. He had persisted this morning in finishing the volume, and he pronounced himself infinitely more delighted than when he first wrote to me. He says that what you have heretofore published is nothing to this effort. He says also, besides its being the most original and interesting, it is the most finished of your writings; and he has undertaken to correct the press for you.

Never, since my intimacy with Mr. Gifford, did I see him so heartily pleased, or give one-fiftieth part of the praise, with one-thousandth part of the warmth. He speaks in ecstasy of the Dream—the whole volume beams with genius. I am sure he loves you in his heart; and when he called upon me some time ago, and I told him that you were gone, he instantly exclaimed in a full room, “Well! he has not left his equal behind him—that I will say!” Perhaps you will enclose a line for him. . . .

Respecting the ‘Monody,’ I extract from a letter which I received this morning from Sir James Mackintosh: “I presume that I have to thank you for a copy of the ‘Monody’ on Sheridan received this morning. I wish it had been accompanied by the additional favour of mentioning the name of the writer, at which I only guess: it is difficult to read the poem without desiring to know.”

Generally speaking it is not, I think, popular, and spoken of rather for fine passages than as a whole. How could you give so trite an image as in the last two lines? Gifford does not like it; Frere does. A-propos of Mr. Frere: he came to me while at breakfast this morning, and between some stanzas which he was repeating to me of a truly original poem of his own, he said carelessly, “By the way, about half-an-hour ago I was so silly (taking an immense pinch of snuff and priming his nostrils with it) as to get married!” Perfectly true. He set out for Hastings about an hour after he left me, and upon my conscience I verily believe that, if I had had your MS. to have put into his hands, as sure as fate he would have sat with me reading it* all the morning and totally forgotten his little engagement.

I saw Lord Holland to-day looking very well. I wish I could send you Gifford’s ‘Ben Jonson’; it is full of fun and interest, and allowed on all hands to be most ably done; would, I am sure, amuse you. I have very many new important and interesting works of all kinds in the press, which I should be happy to know any means of sending. My =Review is improving in sale beyond my most sanguine expectations. I now sell nearly 9000. Even Perry says the Edinburgh Review is going to the devil. I was with Mrs. Leigh to-day, who is very well; she leaves town on Saturday. Her eldest daughter, I fancy, is a most engaging girl; but yours, my Lord, is unspeakably interesting and promising, and I am happy to add that Lady B. is looking well. God bless you! my best wishes and feelings are always with you, and I sincerely wish that

* He had left his wife at the church so as to bring his poem to Murray.

your happiness may be as unbounded as your genius, which has rendered me so much,

My Lord, your obliged Servant, J. M.

The negotiations for the purchase of the third canto were left in the hands of Mr. Kinnaird, who demurred to Mr. Murray’s first offer of 1500 guineas, whereupon the publisher wrote to Lord Byron.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

September 20th, 1816. My Lord,

As soon as I had read the third canto of ‘Childe Harold’ myself, I had no hesitation in telling Mr. Kinnaird that I should make my offer fifteen hundred guineas; but he has called to-day to say that two thousand are expected by your friends. I told him that hitherto, I believed that no one had impugned my estimations; and that with regard to yourself I had no other feeling than a desire to give all that was possible, and on the present occasion I thought I had anticipated any notions, and that I suspected the demand to be based rather on my own data than on any independent estimate. The poem, however, is so much beyond anything in modern days that I may be out in my calculation: it requires an ethereal mind, like its author’s, to cope with it. He was so obliging as to ask for the additional £500 eventually; but I have preferred to settle it at once at the £2000—and now the Lord (not you) have mercy upon me! Remember I do stipulate for all the original MSS., copies or scraps.

I am thinking more seriously than ever of publishing a monthly literary journal and am promised the contributions of the greatest characters here. If I succeed, I will venture to solicit the favour of your powerful assistance in the shape of letters, essays, characters, facts, travels, epigrams, and other—to you—small shot, and to entreat the favour of your influence among your friends.

I remain, my Lord, your faithful Servant, John Murray .

In his reply Lord Byron consented to receive the extra £500 conditionally on the sale of a certain number of copies to be fixed by the publisher.

After the departure of Lord Byron from England Mr. Murray had much correspondence respecting him, more particularly with the Hon. Augusta Leigh, his sister; Lady Byron, and Lady Caroline Lamb.

Mrs. Leigh to John Murray.

Six Mile Bottom, Newmarket.

Pray have the goodness to give me a line, when you can spare one moment, to say whether you or anybody else of your acquaintance has heard from my brother since I saw you, because I have not, and his silence of five weeks being unusual, I am somewhat anxious. I shall be much obliged to you for a book which I see advertised, the ‘Journal of the Duchesse d’Angoulême.’ It sounds interesting, and Col. Leigh has a great wish to read it, or I could wait until I return to town. If you can tell me any remarks upon the Reviews, you know they can’t fail to be interesting.

Yours very sincerely, Augusta Leigh .

P.S.—The post has brought me a letter from Byron—quite well; also one from Mr. Davies; so I need not trouble you with those queries. My brother writes to me about some trouble with one of his servants, Fletcher, and I believe it a matter of great difficulty.

December, 1816.

I return you the letter, which I have shown this morning to Mr. D[avies], who is going to town to-morrow, and will call upon you and talk over the subject. He seems to treat it as you do, and as I am much inclined to do, except when I think about what I’ve heard is said or thought, and really for my brother’s sake, as well as my own and that of all belonging to me, it afflicts me; at the same time that I know not how to act. I trust to you and Mr. D. to discuss the point, and if any new thought should strike me, I will write to you again. Of course I suppose the 5000 printed must be circulated, and if the lines were omitted in the others, it might be asked—Why?* I am in a terrible state of unhappiness, which I’m sure will not surprise you. Anxious to do the best by all, and I assure you you are included, for I am truly grateful for your kind considerateness, and

Ever very truly yours, A. L.

P.S.—I must tell you that the remark made to my friend was from one who is a most enthusiastic admirer of my brother. I should less have minded it from one in any degree prepossessed against him. Pray tell Mr. D. this; I omitted it.

Mr. Murray wrote to Lord Byron on the 13th of December, 1816, informing him that, at a dinner at the Albion Tavern, he had sold to the assembled booksellers 7000 of his third canto of ‘Childe Harold’ and 7000 of his ‘Prisoner of Chillon.’ He then proceeds:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

In literary affairs I have taken the field in great force—opening with the Third Canto, ‘Chillon,’ and, following up my blow, I have since published ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ another novel, I believe (but I really don’t know) by the author of ‘Waverley’; but much superior to what has already appeared, excepting the character of Meg Merrilies. Every one is in ecstasy about it, and I would give a finger if I could send it you, but this I will contrive. Conversations with your friend Buonaparte at St. Helena, amusing, but scarce worth sending. Lord Holland has just put forth a very improved edition of the ‘Life of Lope de Vega and Inez de Castro.’ Gifford’s ‘Ben Jonson’ has put to death all former editions, and is very much liked. The ‘Faro-Table’ of Tobin has

* This must have related to the third canto of ‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,’ in which many stanzas were inserted which Mrs. Leigh thought might give pain to Lady Byron.

been acted and successfully, but it is very paltry—principally made up from the ‘School for Scandal.’ Mr. Leigh’s (M.P.) account of his Travels contains a very remarkable and well-told incident, which would amuse you. We have letters coming out from Hume, Chesterfield, and Franklin. Moore’s poem is to be in the press in February, so the author tells me. I have a poem, or rather one is coming to me by an obscure author in Paris, which I am assured contains some very powerful passages; this Mr. Gifford allows. Mr. K[innaird] has been ejected from Drury Lane, to his no small annoyance; this comes of quarrelling with a woman!

January 22nd, 1817.

I am continually harassed by shoals of MSS. poems—two, three, or four a day. I require a porter to carry, an author to read, and a secretary to answer them. Maturin has written two acts of a new tragedy, which I think they are spoiling by sending him criticisms. Sheil, another Irishman, the author of ‘Adelaide,’ exceedingly applauded in Dublin, but hastily damned in London, tells me that another work is in hand, which is to be produced at Covent Garden in a month, called the ‘Apostate.’ I am just about to publish a strange political rhapsody by Lord Erskine, entitled ‘Armata,’ describing our constitution under a foreign name. “Damn them,” says the author, “I’ll show the world that I am not in my dotage yet.” “What the devil’s this?” said Frere, on taking up some sheets of the said work. “Oh,” said Gifford, “something that Murray is publishing.” “Not upon his own account,” replied Frere. By the way, Frere, who always remembers you with honour (and I told you before what he wrote about the third canto), likes the ‘Armenian Grammar’* very much, though he would prefer the English part of it. He wishes me to send you Mitford on the ‘Harmony of Language,’ which I will do. He says that the type is not so large as it ought to be for a language which is not to be whipped into one, but coaxed in by the most enticing appearances. I will most willingly take fifty copies even upon my love of letters; so they may be sent as soon as completed. We are all much interested with

* Byron, to please his neighbours at Venice, the Armenian monks of San Lazaro, edited a grammar printed by them at their own press.

“the very curious books and MSS. chiefly translated from Greek originals now lost,” and I am desired to entreat that you will gain every particular respecting their history and contents, together with the best account of the Armenian language, which may form a very interesting introduction to the copies which you send here, and which preface I will print myself; unless as a curiosity you print it there also; or if you would review the ‘Grammar’ for me and insert all this knowledge in the article, which would certainly be the very best way of making the ‘Grammar’ known to the public. I wish, besides obliging me with such a curious and interesting critique, that you would, unknown even to your bosom friend Hobhouse (to whom I beg to repeat my kindest remembrances), attempt some work in prose, which I will engage to keep sacredly secret and publish anonymously. I beg you to be assured that I am perfectly ready to undergo the copyright of as many cantos of ‘Childe Harold,’ or any other poem, as fast as they are completed to your own entire satisfaction; but remember we have got to heap Pelion on Ossa; the higher the pile already, the far greater our future labour. I forgot to mention above that I have as yet ascertained only that there are no Armenian types at Cambridge. In my next I will know with regard to this matter at Oxford. If you can pick up at Venice a quarto entitled ‘L’Istoria di Verona del Sig. Girolamo,’ Verona, 1594, you will find at page 589 the story of the Montagues and Capulets given historically, and related with great beauty and interest. Pray keep an exact Journal of all you see, and write me faithful accounts of sights, curiosities, shows, and manners, etc. I will use nothing without your positive permission. We had a quizzing article on Wedderburn Webster,* who has replied through the Morning Chronicle in a letter to Mr. Gifford, which he concluded by leaving him with “feelings of contempt and oblivion.” I am sorry that Mr. Hobhouse is answering also; one man has no chance against an army; and he should have laughed—he who quizzes others must calculate upon being quizzed himself; and I really esteem Mr. Hobhouse and wish he had not done this. I would pay

* Wedderburn Webster’s ‘Waterloo,’ reviewed by Mr. Croker in Q. R., No. 30.

any one to write against me. In a few days I shall send you our article on the third canto. You will not have occasion to answer that. An Edinburgh has not come out since the publication of your poems. Their article on Coleridge was base, after what had passed between you and the editor. Mr. Gordon has carefully deposited your spoils of Waterloo, which ornament my room, as the best and indeed only means I have of preserving them for you. The MSS. and bones* have not appeared, and I will write about them. Sir John Malcolm is almost at Madras by this time; he left his sincere good wishes for you. I let him read the MSS and he was in ecstasies. All your old friends chez moi remember you, and you are often the subject of their conversation, as their eye catches yours in the portrait. which I am now facing, and which is, I assure you, no small happiness to me to possess, as it eternally renews the association of your constancy to me.

I had a letter from Mr. Ward, to whom, at Paris, I sent the poems, and he is delighted; and Mr. Canning, most particularly so with the third canto. I now this time print 10,000 of my Review, and you are in it. I have the translation of a Chinese comedy in the press, and some ‘Tales,’ by Antar, a hundred years previous to the conversion of the Arabians to Mahomedanism; the ‘Journal’ of Captain Tuckey, who commanded the unfortunate expedition to Africa by the Congo. He and his officers died of fatigue and over-exertion; but in all other respects nothing could have been better planned or executed, and the ‘Journal’ is very interesting. This I will contrive to send you, and though not quite à-propos, I may here say that I have procured the tooth powder. I think you should write me a note of thanks for Lord Holland. Your friend, Sir James [Bland] Burges, with whom I dined yesterday at Mr. Croker’s, often calls and talks to me about you. Walter Scott always mentions you with kindness in his letters, and he thinks nothing better than Canto III. Give me a poem—a good Venetian tale describing manners formerly from the story itself, and now from your own observations, and call it ‘Marianna.’

John Murray .

* The bones picked up on the battlefield of Morat, and now in Mr. Murray’s possession. (See ‘Childe Harold,’ Canto III., St. lxiii., note.)

The following letter from Mr. Sharon Turner to Mr. Murray, relates to the assignment of the copyright of both poems:—

Mr. Turner to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

I called to-day hoping to have the pleasure of seeing you, and to ask you how it is intended that the assignment of Lord Byron shall be executed. It must be either sent to him to be signed, or the power of attorney must be sent out to him to authorize some person here to sign for him. In either case, it will be necessary that the instrument should be witnessed by some English gentleman who resides usually in England, in case his evidence should ever be wanted. . . .

I thank you for Chateaubriand. He has many good things, and some bad ones. In talking of the Divinity of Monarchy he hurts it, and provokes sneers. The safe and solid ground of Royalty is its utility. While this continues, there is no fear for it. Utility is the principle that will make the subject attached to it, and the Monarch deserve the attachment. On Religion he says much that is very good; but unfortunately he means by it, not that sort of intelligent religion which a nation so enlightened as the French require, and can only be affected by; but merely the old Papal System just as it was, and as no one now respects. He is like a man who should try to force you to take revolting physic, swearing at the same time that it is delicious food. But yet, with all its faults, I should think it is a book that would do good to the French mind by presenting some things to it that are well worth its consideration and discussion. I am sorry it has been suppressed. It should have been circulated, and answered where it is open to objection. The discussion would have done benefit to France. The French mind wants the ventilation of free and temperate discussion. But there can be no judgment and no political wisdom unless both sides of a question are raised and deliberated upon. It is narrow conduct and unsound policy to preclude temperate discussion. How little has it hurt, and how much has it improved, happy England—England still happy though distressed—only temporarily distressed I believe. With every good wish,

Believe me, dear Murray, very sincerely, Shn. Turner .*

The result of Mr. Turner’s advice was, that Lord Byron granted a power of attorney to the Hon. Douglas Kinnaird, his banker, who had been associated with him in the Drury Lane management, and Mr. Kinnaird thenceforward arranged with Mr. Murray for the copyrights of Lord Byron’s works.

At Mr. Murray’s earnest request, Scott had consented to review the third Canto of ‘Childe Harold’ in the Quarterly. In forwarding the MS. he wrote as follows:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, January 10th, 18I7. My dear Sir,

I have this day sent under Croker’s cover a review of Lord Byron’s last poems. You know how high I hold his poetical reputation, but besides, one is naturally forced upon so many points of delicate consideration, that really I have begun and left off several times, and after all send the article to you with full power to cancel it if you think any part of it has the least chance of hurting his feelings. You know him better than I do, and you also know the

* The writer of this acute letter had long been one of Mr. Murray’s most intimate friends. During his anxious and busy life as a solicitor, he found time to collect materials for his ‘History of the Anglo-Saxons,’ the first volume of which was published in 1799, and the third and last, in 1805. He was the first English author who took pains to investigate the valuable information left us in the Anglo-Saxon records. The result was a work of great value, though since superseded by more elaborate histories. He afterwards published his ‘History of the Norman Conquest to the Year 1509.’ The first volume was published in 1814, the second in 1815, and the third and last in 1823. He was the author of other works, and a contributor to the Quarterly almost from the beginning.

public, and are aware that to make any successful impression on them the critic must appear to speak with perfect freedom. I trust I have not abused this discretion. I am sure I have not meant to do so, and yet during Lord Byron’s absence, and under the present circumstances, I should feel more grieved than at anything that ever befell me if there should have slipped from my pen anything capable of giving him pain.

There are some things in the critique which are necessarily and unavoidably personal, and sure I am if he attends to it, which is unlikely, he will find advantage from doing so. I wish Mr. Gifford and you would consider every word carefully. If you think the general tenor is likely to make any impression on him, if you think it likely to hurt him either in his feelings or with the public, in God’s name fling the sheets in the fire and let them be as not written. But if it appears, I should wish him to get an early copy, and that you would at the same time say I am the author, at your importunity. No one can honour Lord Byron’s genius more than I do, and no one had so great a wish to love him personally, though personally we had not the means of becoming very intimate. In his family distress (deeply to be deprecated, and in which probably he can yet be excused) I still looked to some moment of reflection when bad advisers (and, except you were one, I have heard of few whom I should call good) were distant from the side of one who is so much the child of feeling and emotion. An opportunity was once afforded me of interfering, but things appeared to me to have gone too far; yet, even after all, I wish I had tried it, for Lord Byron always seemed to give me credit for wishing him sincerely well, and knew me to be superior to what Commodore Trunnion would call “the trash of literary envy and petty rivalry.”

I got your letter in the country, but was able to do nothing till I came to town, both because I was occupied all day in my agricultural improvements, and on account of certain curious cramps in the stomach which occupied three nights very ungraciously, and threatened to send me out of this excellent world upon very short warning.

I have pressed Erskine to undertake the novel* with all

* There is no clue to the work here referred to.

the arguments I can use, and trust I shall succeed, as I have offered him all the accumulated lore which I am possessed of to facilitate his labour. I find James Ballantyne has already spoken to him on the subject. I only returned from Abbotsford last Saturday very unwell, but am now as stout as a lion.

Yours faithfully, Walter Scott .

Lord Byron’s opinion of the article forms so necessary a complement to Walter Scott’s sympathetic criticism of the man and the poet, that we make no excuse for reproducing it, as conveyed in a letter to Mr. Murray (March 3rd, 1817).

“In acknowledging the arrival of the article from the Quarterly, which I received two days ago, I cannot express myself better than in the words of my sister Augusta, who (speaking of it) says, that it is written in a spirit ‘of the most feeling and kind nature.’

“It is, however, something more. It seems to me (as far as the subject of it may be permitted to judge) to be very well written as a composition, and I think will do the journal no discredit, because even those who condemn its partiality, must praise its generosity. The temptations to take another and a less favourable view of the question have been so great and numerous, that, what with public opinion, politics, &c., he must be a gallant as well as a good man who has ventured in that place, and at this time, to write such an article, even anonymously. Such things, however, are their own reward; and I even flatter myself that the writer, whoever he may be (and I have no guess), will not regret that the perusal of this has given me as much gratification as any composition of that nature could give, and more than any has given—and I have had a good many in my time of one kind or the other. It is not the mere praise, but there is a tact and a delicacy throughout, not only with regard to me but to others, which, as it had not been observed elsewhere, I had till now doubted whether it could be observed anywhere.”

“When I tell you,” he wrote to Moore a week later, “that Walter Scott is the author of the article in the Quarterly, you will agree with me that such an article is still more honourable to him than to myself.”

We conclude this episode with the following letter from Scott:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, January 22nd, 1817. My dear Sir,

I received both your letters and all the enclosures, together with your note, which is more than the service required by one half. When I can assist you I am always happy to do it, but it is only particular subjects on which I can be really useful, so that I have neither right nor wish to be considered as above a common labourer in the trenches.

I am truly happy Lord Byron’s article meets your ideas of what may make some impression on his mind. In genius, poetry has seldom had his equal, and if he has acted very wrong in some respects, he has been no worse than half the men of his rank in London who have done the same, and are not spoken of because not worth being railed against.

I am in the midst of plans and elevations for enlarging my cottage, which needed it, as you cannot but remember.

Yours truly, W. S.

Lady Byron also wrote about the article:—

Lady Byron to John Murray.

7, Green Street, February 16th, 1817.

I leave London to-morrow, and should be obliged to you if you would let me have Dugald Stewart’s Dissertation prefixed to the ‘Encyclopædia’ to read on my journey. My father also wishes to have Franklin’s ‘Letters’ and Spence’s ‘Anecdotes.’ May I trouble you to send them to me before nine to-morrow morning. I am inclined to ask a question, which I hope you will not decline answering, if not contrary to your engagements. Who is the author of the review of ‘Childe Harold’ in the Quarterly?

Your faithful Servant, A. I. Byron.

Among other ladies who wrote on the subject of Lord Byron’s works was Lady Caroline Lamb, who had caricatured him (as he supposed) in her ‘Glenarvon.’ Her letter is dated Welwyn, franked by William Lamb:—

Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray.

November 5th, 1816.

You cannot need my assuring you that if you will entrust me with the new poems, none of the things you fear shall occur, in proof of which I ask you to enquire with yourself, whether, if a person in constant correspondence and friendship with another, yet keeps a perfect silence on one subject, she cannot do so when at enmity and at a distance. Now, I never boasted of seeing the poems first, never even told my mother I had done so, never ventured an opinion concerning them but to you, and only once I remember, when Lord Byron said he had sent them to me (which I believe was not true), did I ever speak to him of them. In short, I have so little vanity about seeing things before others, that, if it were not some curiosity and lurking interest for the Childe’s works, you might not be requested so earnestly to send them; and, as it is, take your own way—I shall not murmur. How very well written and interesting Gifford’s ‘Life’ is! How free from all affectation, and how very just his few observations! I only wish he had written more. William Lamb writes more in that style than any one. I see another ‘Life’ is coming out of Sheridan. Believe me therefore sincerely thankful for what I am going to receive—as the young lady said to a duchess when she was desired by her parents to say “Grace.”

C. L.

This letter, to which no reply seems to have been sent, is followed by another, in which her ladyship says:—

Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray.

“I wish to ask you one question: are you offended with me or my letter? If so, I am sorry, but depend upon it if after seven years’ acquaintance you choose to cut off what you ever termed your left hand, I have too much gratitude towards you to allow of it. Accept therefore every apology for every supposed fault. I always write eagerly and in haste. I never read over what I have written. If therefore I said anything I ought not, pardon it—it was not intended; and let me entreat you to remember a maxim I have found very useful to me, that there is nothing in this life worth quarrelling about, and that half the people we are offended with never intended to give us cause.

“Thank you for Holcroft’s ‘Life,’ which is extremely curious and interesting. I think you will relent and send me ‘Childe Harold’ before any one has it—this is the first time you have not done so—and the Quarterly Review; and pray also any other book that is curious, or, at all events, tell me of it, as we have much time and I like your judgment. How I detest Mr. Frere—will you tell me why? I send you a book; pray read it—‘Lady Calantha Limb.’ The authoress, actuated by a holy zeal, says in her preface that she is resolved to turn me into ridicule. She chooses an easy task—too easy, I fear—yet fails, and makes a most blundering business. Wit’s razor’s edge she has not, but a most unkind tongue to make up for it. I know that ‘Timon’ succeeds, and I am delighted, as it contains, I think, more beauties than any play. I am sorry Phrynia and Timandra do not appear. Mrs. Mardyn and Mrs. Osgood would have looked beautiful, and, without letting them speak those very pretty lines addressed to them, might have been inserted. Mrs. Wilmot* looks ill—like a fine ruin on which the setting sun is shining. I believe they never will forget your friendly and kind behaviour to them. Miss Wilmot spoke of you to me yesterday in a manner that could not fail to please you.

“My little chestnut horse is as well as ever. They say

* Afterwards Lady Dacre, her tragedy of ‘Ina’ was published by Mr. Murray.

a black mare of mine (not the one I ride, but a beautiful one) has broken its back. This is all the news I have, except that the Morning Chronicle disgusts me, and that I wish a little enthusiasm for victories and commanders were allowed. I quite pine to see the Quarterly Review and ‘Childe Harold.’ Have mercy and send them, or I shall gallop to town to see you. Is 450 guineas too dear for a new barouche? If you know this let me know, as we of the country know nothing.

“Yours sincerely, “C. L.”

Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray.

There was a time when you had not let so many days pass without asking me for a letter of Lord Byron’s: indeed the absent and the present—the right hand and left—are both alike forgotten. I must tell you of my adventures to-night. I set out stark mad in white satin, as Tilburina did, to see Don Juan seized by the Italian; and scarce was my dear fatal name pronounced, “Lady Caroline Lamb,” when some jocose footman said, “Sooner Lady Caroline Wolf.” At this too just criticism several warm defenders sallied forth amongst the same precious herd; whilst they were all fighting, I was very soon kidnapped by two rack-chairmen, who insisted on carrying me each into his respective chair, I being all the time vainly desirous of getting in and not out of the Opera House. It so chanced that I was very fine, having dined out in diamonds and feathers. When I therefore got safe up with a crowd of plumed attendants, my unfortunate dog, that long-cared-for dog, covered with mud like Lord Something’s rat, appeared entering the vestibule. At this sight soldiers and servants shouted forth “A fox!” and began hissing it down. Judge of my situation. I was either obliged to give up this dear shabby cur, who had followed my carriage and me, or own a friend in such disguise that few had dared do so. The latter was however my choice, and being much too frightened and late, after all these adventures, I turned back to find my carriage almost carried away by Irish boys and drunken chairmen, one of whom, to the indignation of the rest, constantly vociferated, “This is my lady.”—“Your lady, d——n you.”—“Yes, my lady,”—and sure enough he, like the dog, proved a mendicant pensioner, when a blaze of light showed him to me like the ghost. Now, fare thee well; excuse all this nonsense. Go to the play on Friday. Come round and see me, or come with me the first night our opera box is vacant, which it never has been yet. But I shall not fail to let you know.

Yours, The Apostate.

In strong contrast with these effusions is the following letter from Mrs. Graham:—

Mrs. Graham to John Murray.

March, 1817.

A thousand thanks, my dear sir, for the loan of the Journal, which I have perused with the greatest interest.* A more superstitious age would certainly have believed him possessed of the art magic, so completely does he continue to force attention and sympathy wherever he pleases. He says, “I have lately repeopled my mind with Nature.” Oh why, when so alive to the charms of outward nature, will he not open his mind to the beauty which swells around us and within us, and need only to be desired to be manifest in brighter glory than ever adorned the fresh rising of the sun from the Eastern ocean. Why shut his heart to the tide of gentle affection, where, more clearly than on the waters of his favourite lake, the face of heaven is reflected. Then he provokes me with fancying himself hated. Good God! did he know how many have with breathless interest watched his steps, grieved for him, praised him, and where they could not, turned aside their eyes like the patriarch’s pious son, that they might not look upon his frailties, he would never return all this with misanthropy. Oh no, he would learn that many are all, nay more than all, they seem. But I always forget myself when I think of our greatest genius. Therefore I will hasten to thank you for the two dramas. The French one amuses me, the other does so for a different reason. A glorious triumph to the Laureate!

Yours very truly, Maria Graham .

* Byron’s ‘Swiss Journal,’ published in Moore’s ‘Life.’

In sending home the MS. of the first act of ‘Manfred,’ Lord Byron wrote, giving but unsatisfactory accounts of his own health. Mr. Murray replied:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

March 20th, 1817. My Lord,

I have to acknowledge your kind letter, dated the 3rd, received this hour; but I am sorry to say that it has occasioned me great anxiety about your health. You are not wont to cry before you are hurt; and I am apprehensive that you are worse even than you allow. Pray keep quiet and take care of yourself. My Review shows you that you are worth preserving and that the world yet loves you. If you become seriously worse, I entreat you to let me know it, and I will fly to you with a physician; an Italian one is only a preparation for the anatomist. I will not tell your sister of this, if you will tell me true. I had hopes that this letter would have confirmed my expectations of your speedy return, which has been stated by Mr. Kinnaird, and repeated to me by Mr. Davies, whom I saw yesterday, and who promises to write. We often indulge our recollections of you, and he allows me to believe that I am one of the few who really know you.

Gifford gave me yesterday the first act of ‘Manfred,’ with a delighted countenance, telling me it was wonderfully poetical, and desiring me to assure you that it well merits publication. I shall send proofs to you with his remarks, if he have any; it is a wild and delightful thing, and I like it myself hugely.

I had a letter from Mrs. Leigh yesterday, enclosing one for your Lordship. Mrs. Leigh promises me a visit by the end of the month. The public very generally accord with your opinion of the critique in the Quarterly, and it has actually, as your friend Heber said, produced a sensation. It is equally honourable to Scott’s head and heart, and I rejoice much in my sagacity in soliciting him to write it. Gifford said to me, “Lord Byron is much obliged to you.” Scott was much satisfied with it himself, and still more by the praise which has followed it; and this will be raised and confirmed by your approbation which, in substance, I shall venture to communicate. The article is likely to have proved the more efficacious from the good fortune of its having appeared in perhaps our very best number, of which I have sold already almost 10,000 copies. Of the next number I am printing 12,000; the sale is not exceeded by the Edinburgh Review. The article in that journal, which I also sent you, is very good and satisfactory; but ours is peculiar, and therefore the more attractive.

Mr. Gifford, who is at my elbow, and to whom I have just read your letter—at least that part of it referring to the Review and to the Procession—desires me to present his sincere regards to you, and to assure you how much he joins in my anxieties and regrets at your Lordship’s illness. However, I flatter myself with hoping that your next will tell us it has very materially abated.

I have just received, in a way perfectly unaccountable, a MS. from St. Helena—with not a word. I suppose it to be originally written by Buonaparte or his agents.—It is very curious his life, in which each event is given in almost a word—a battle described in a short sentence. I call it therefore simply Manuscrit venu de Ste. Hélène d’une manière inconnue.* Lord Holland has a motion on our treatment of Buonaparte at St. Helena for Wednesday next; and on Monday I shall publish. You will have seen Buonaparte’s Memorial on this subject, complaining bitterly of all; pungent but very injudicious, as it must offend all the other allied powers to be reminded of their former prostration.

I long to be admitted to a sight of the Miniature—how many have I seen? Wedderburn Webster is again at work; he is composing a pamphlet on the subject of the recent suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act.

April 12th, 1817.

Our friend Southey has got into a confounded scrape. Some twenty years ago, when he knew no better and was a

* This work attracted a considerable amount of attention in London, but more especially in Paris, as purporting to be a chapter of autobiography by Napoleon, then a prisoner in St. Helena. It was in all probability the work of some of the deposed Emperor’s friends and adherents in Paris, issued for the purpose of keeping his name prominently before the world.

Republican, he wrote a certain drama, entitled, ‘Wat Tyler,’ in order to disseminate wholesome doctrine amongst the lower orders. This he presented to a friend, with a fraternal embrace, who was at that time enjoying the cool reflection generated by his residence in Newgate. This friend, however, either thinking its publication might prolong his durance, or fancying that it would not become profitable as a speculation, quietly put it into his pocket; and now that the author has most manfully laid about him, slaying Whigs and Republicans by the million, this cursed friend publishes; but what is yet worse, the author, upon sueing for an injunction, to proceed in which he is obliged to swear that he is the author, is informed by the Chancellor that it is seditious—and that for sedition there is no copyright. I will inclose either now or in my next a second copy, for as there is no copyright, everyone has printed it, which will amuse you.

A severe attack of low fever, compelled Lord Byron to break away from Venice and his companions there, in the spring of 1817. His first halting-place on the way to Rome was Ferrara, where he visited the Court in which, according to Gibbon, Hugo and Parisina were beheaded, and the Cell of Tasso, which elicited from him the “The Lament of Tasso,” forwarded to Mr. Murray a few days later from Florence.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

May 13th, 1817. My Lord,

Your favour of the 23rd arrived yesterday, and I instantly sent the lines upon Tasso to Mr. Gifford, who called with them soon afterwards, and assured me that they were exceedingly good, and that there was besides a difference in the style, which would, by being novel, prove additionally interesting. Moore’s Poem is to appear on the 22nd inst., and I will try to send it. Mr. Sheil, the author of ‘Adelaide,’ has had most extraordinary success on the stage with his tragedy, called ‘The Apostate,’ merely from forming a series of interesting situations. I read it with Mr. Gifford in MS., and we both thought it impossible that it could succeed. I went, fully convinced that it would be damned; but nothing could exceed the applause which it drew throughout. It had the advantage of giving four exceedingly appropriate characters to C. Kemble, Macready, Young, and Miss O’Neil; neither of whom ever had an opportunity of acting better. Its success has been complete, and it must be acted as long as four good actors can be brought together.

The attractions of Venice proved too strong for Lord Byron; by the end of May he was there again, but not before his brief visit to Rome had inspired him to undertake the fourth canto of ‘Childe Harold.’ The summer was employed “in working up his impressions,” and on July 15th and 20th he wrote to Mr. Murray that the canto was completed, and only required to be “copied and polished,” but at the same time he began to “barter” for the price of the canto, so completely had his old scruples on this score disappeared. Mr. Murray acknowledged the two letters as follows:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

August 5th, 1817. My Lord,

This day has brought me your letter of the 15th of July, adding another to the many instances of your truly kind indulgences to my unpardonable indolence. I am very sorry indeed to find that there is so little chance of seeing you soon in England, and I fancy you will suffer equal grief when you learn that next year you will certainly have a visit from me. In the meantime, I will endeavour to send a regular journal of news, literary and domestic. I perceive, by your reckoning by stanzas, that you are within fourteen stanzas of completing your opus magnum, for such I think it is your determination to make ‘Childe Harold.’ The first stanza Mr. Gifford thinks very highly of, as does Mr. Frere, and many more to whom I have ventured to show it. You need not be assured how much I am rejoiced at the prospect of again opening my literary campaign under such brilliant auspices.

By the way, Polidori has sent me his tragedy! Do me the kindness to send by return of post a delicate declension of it, which I engage faithfully to-copy. I am truly sorry that he will employ himself in a way so ill- suited to his genius; for he is not without literary talents.*

I sent you copies of ‘Manfred’ and of ‘Tasso,’ which are, I trust, printed correctly. They are both, but particularly the former, greatly admired by the best critics; but they soar above the Million. Mr. Frere, I think I told you, says that it and the third canto place you in a higher class of poets—that is the very highest. Amongst the books I intruded upon Mr. Kinnaird was ‘Coleridge’s Life and Opinions,’ which will I think interest you. You will pardon the occasional obscurities and, I fear, absurdities, for its power in most parts. I think you will like my ‘MSS. de St. Helene.’ Talma said, when he read it, that he conversed with Buonaparte. I sent him one splendidly bound, and he wrote me a letter expressing his delight at what reminded him of past glory.

You will have heard, not without regret, of the premature death of Madame de Staël, who, with all her faults, was an excellent person. I think she had a good heart; and I know that she was very kind to me.

She confessed her marriage, and acknowledged a child, a son, born when she was forty-nine.

Mr. Scrope Davies often does me the favour to call, and we discuss your letters and poetry. I saw Mrs. Leigh three days ago, in some trouble at the entrance of the whooping cough into her family, but otherwise well. Mr. Moore, I believe I told you, is gone to Paris with Mr. Rogers, who dedicates all his time to him. Whilst Mr. Kinnaird is with you, I trust you will do me the favour to confide any commissions—particularly of cutting off Mr. Hanson’s head—heart or bowels he hath not—and anything else. Your Armenian friends have this moment presented themselves with your letter. I will take all their grammars and do all otherwise to serve and assist them.

* Lord Byron at once acceded to this request by writing the well-known verses commencing—“Dear Doctor, I have read your play.”

I will recommend them to Sir John Malcolm, at Madras. I am very sorry they miss the value of Mr. Kinnaird’s more powerful aid.

August 15th, 1817.

“By this time Mr. Kinnaird has, I hope, reached you in safety, and presented all my packets of poetry and tooth powder; and hereafter I hope to receive your comments on the one portion, and your thanks for the other. You will readily believe how much I am delighted to learn that the fourth canto of ‘Childe Harold’ is completed, and if you please to accept the exchange, I shall readily present fifteen hundred guineas for the copyright; but I entreat you to let me have the original MS.

“I have a letter from Mr. Whishaw, dated Paris, August 10th, in which he begs me to contradict the report of Madame de Staël having become Catholic, which he assures me, from good authority, was not the case.”

In order to save time, some corrections in the proofs of ‘Manfred’ made by Mr. Gifford, were, as on many previous occasions, adopted without consulting Lord Byron. This proceeding in the present instance irritated him, and drew down some severe censures on Murray, who replied:

John Murray to Lord Byron.

September 9th, 1817.

Mr. Gifford, after consulting me, omitted your close of the drama from no other motive than because he thought that the words you allude to lessened the effect; and I was convinced of this myself, and the omission to send a copy to you earlier was merely that, having no direct opportunity, it did not before occur to me to send it by post; and, upon my honour, the alteration was so trivial in my mind that I forgot the importance which it might have in the eye of an author. I have written up this day to have the page cancelled and your reading restored. In future I propose to send you every proof by post, with any suggestions of Mr. G. upon them for your approbation. The slight errors of the press which you point out in the fifth volume have been corrected against a new edition. I assure you that I take no umbrage at irritability which will occasionally burst from a mind like yours; but I sometimes feel a deep regret that in our pretty long intercourse I appear to have failed to show that a man in my situation may possess the feelings and principles of a gentleman; most certainly I do think that, from personal attachment, I could venture as much in any shape for your service as any of those who have the good fortune to be ranked amongst your friends.

How I have omitted to tell you what I have heard of ‘Manfred,’ I cannot conceive, but so it appears to be. All the higher critics, such as Frere, are in ecstasy with it, averring that it places you far above all your former efforts; but it is not so popular with the general reader, because they go through it at once, expecting to find their pleasure in the intricacy and interest of the plot, and being therein disappointed, they do not recur to the beauties which they had hastily passed over; to conclude, it is less popular, but more praised. Mr. Crabbe did not think ‘Tasso’ equal to yourself; but, he added, who could have written it but Lord Byron?

By the way, I asked Gifford and some others how Scott would like to be called the Scottish Ariosto, and no one can tell why you should call him so, except, perhaps, on account of his adopting the same measure.

Mr. Hobhouse spent a considerable part of the year 1817 travelling about in Italy, whither he had gone principally to see Lord Byron. He wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Hobhouse to John Murray.

Venice, December 7th, 1817.

As I find you have been good enough to remember me in sundry letters to these parts of the world, and as it may be possible that my repeated acknowledgments may have been, in the press of matter, put off, like Dr. Drowsy’s sermons, to a better opportunity, I have discovered at last an excuse for writing to you, without having anything to tell which can interest you, or to be of any other service than the disburdening of my conscience by duly registering the above thanks for your attentions. I verily believe this place to be the dullest in Christendom, and yet, from congenial qualities perhaps, I have been here and about here since last August. The Italian is at no time the gayest of his species or the most approachable, and although the Venetians, time out of mind, have been the fondest of strangers of any of their fellow Cis-alpines, yet their present disasters and the weight of German depression (for it is not oppression) have made them as little inviting in all senses of the word as can easily be imagined. I should not presume to say this much if I did more than copy their own confessions. As for the Austrians, they are amiable nowhere but at Vienna. Their inaptitude for these latitudes is beyond all expression or belief. Doubtless Lord B. told you of the order of the Aulic Council for the Archbishop of Aquileia to go to St. Mark’s in a coach and six; as if the Lord Mayor were ordered to go to St. James’s Palace in a gondola. The other day they sank a considerable sum in sinking for a well in one of the artificial islands here. ’Twas in vain that the Venetians assured them that springs never had been, were, or would be found in soil made out of basketfuls of earth thrown upon stakes and pebbles. They delved and dived, and were not to be persuaded by the salt water spirting in their faces at every blow. I don’t know that they have abandoned their researches even now. They bought the great Cornaro palace here the other year for 100,000 francs—about one-tenth of the value—the architecture of Sansovino, and one of the chief ornaments of the Great Canal. They put a German commissioner and a German stove into their new purchase, and between one and the other burnt it down.

If any one writes a book of travels without telling the truth about the masters and the subjects in this most unfortunate country, he deserves more than damnation and a dull sale, and I trust you will take care he has a niche—forgive the word—in your temple of infamy, the Quarterly. I heard that Champion Scott* was collecting five hundred pounds worth of news for Longman in these parts. If

* This was John Scott, author of ‘Sketches of Manners, Scenery, &c, in the French Provinces, Switzerland, and Italy,’ afterwards killed in a duel in consequence of a quarrel arising out of some articles in Blackwood’s Magazine.

any but a gentleman and a scholar, and an accomplished man in every way, presumes to hazard such an undertaking, “be ready,” Mr. Murray, “with all your thunderbolts: dash him to pieces!”

I saw this the moment I crossed the Alps, and, in spite of bad and inveterate habit, shut my journal at once. There is a wide field of glory open for any and for all answering the above description; but it would perhaps be almost impossible to find the requisite variety of acquirement and talent in one individual. The work should be done, like a cyclopede dictionary, by departments. I don’t mean North and South, East and West, though that is no bad plan, but by subjects—literature, antiquities, manners, politics, &c. We have nothing, really nothing, except Mr. Forsyth’s sketch, which, so far as it goes, is a most extraordinary performance. I have tried it by the best test—that is, by putting it into the hands of one or two Italians, who owned, with a sigh, indeed, the unhappy resemblance.

A word or two on my own movements, because they interest you. I shall set out with your ‘Childe’ in about three weeks, from Venice, and shall proceed as fast as bad roads and surly postillions will allow, to Milan, Turin. Lyons, Paris, Calais, according to the post book, to London.

Your new acquisition is a very fine finish to the three cantos already published, and, if I may trust to a taste vitiated—I say it without affectation—by an exclusive attention and attachment to that school of ancient and obsolete poetry of which your friend Mr. Gifford furnished us with the last specimen in his ‘Baviad,” it is the best of all his lordship’s productions. The world will not, to be sure, find that freshness and novelty which is to be discovered only at the opening of a mine. The metal, whatever may be its quantity or quality, must in some degree cease to surprise and delight as it continues to be worked, and nothing more can be hoped than that it should not become less valuable by being more plentiful. In spite of similes, however, it is possible that all other readers may agree with my simple self in liking this fourth canto better than anything Lord B. has ever written. I must confess I feel an affection for it more than ordinary, as part of it was begot, as it were, under my own eyes; for some of the stanzas owe their birth to our morning walk or evening ride at La Mara. I shall conclude with telling you about Lord B.’s bust. It is a masterpiece by Thorwaldsen* who is thought by most judges to surpass Canova in this branch of sculpture. The likeness is perfect: the artist worked con amore, and told me it was the finest head he had ever under his hand. I would have had a wreath round the brows, but the poet was afraid of being mistaken for a king or a conqueror, and his pride or modesty made him forbid the band. However, when the marble comes to England I shall place a golden laurel round it in the ancient style, and, if it is thought good enough, suffix the following inscription, which may serve at least to tell the name of the portrait and allude to the excellence of the artist, which very few lapidary inscriptions do:— “In vain would flattery steal a wreath from fame, And Rome’s best sculptor only half succeed, If England owned no share in Byron’s name Nor hailed the laurel she before decreed.” Of course you are very welcome to a copy—I don’t mean of the verses, but of the bust. But, with the exception of Mr. Kinnaird, who has applied, and Mr. Davies, who may apply, no other will be granted. Farewell, dear Sir.

Ever yours truly obliged, John C. Hobhouse .

The fourth canto duly reached London in Mr. Hobhouse’s portmanteau, and was published in the spring of 1818.

* The bust was made for Mr. Hobhouse, at his expense. Lord Byron said, “I would not pay the price of a Thorwaldsen bust for any head and shoulders, except Napoleon’s, or my children’s, or some ‘absurd womankind’s,’ as Monkbarns calls them, or my sister’s.”

CHAPTER XVI. LORD BYRON’S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY—continued—THE DEATH OF ALLEGRA, ETC.

Lord Byron informed Mr. Murray, on the 12th of October, 1817, that he had written “a poem in or after the excellent manner of Mr. Whistlecraft (whom I take to be Frere);” and in a subsequent letter he said, “Mr. Whistlecraft has no greater admirer than myself. I have written a story in eighty-nine stanzas in imitation of him, called ‘Beppo,’ the short name for Giuseppe, that is the Joe, of the Italian Joseph.” Lord Byron required that it should be printed anonymously, and in any form that Mr. Murray pleased. The manuscript of the poem was not, however, sent off until the beginning of 1818; and it reached the publisher about a month later. When it was set up in type and published, Mr. Murray sent Lord Byron the following letter:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

June 16th, 1818. My Lord,

Having waited, from day to day, in the incessant expectation of the opportunity of sending my letters and various packages by Hanson’s clerk, I gathered from Mr. Hobhouse yesterday the continued uncertainty of his setting out, but I can therefore delay no longer to thank you, in the first instance, for your several kind as well as entertaining letters. Mr. Hobhouse told me yesterday that Hanson had not yet been paid any sums upon your account by your bankers; and I have therefore sent this morning to Messrs. Ransom, Morland, and Co. a thousand guineas, desiring them to remit it to you by this evening’s post. With the remaining 1.500 guineas I shall be prepared against your order; indeed, if you drew upon me for this sum, at sixty days’ sight, it would settle this matter at once; but this as you may find most convenient. I received very safely, a few days ago, by the care of Signor Gio. Bata. Missiaglia* (I was very much obliged indeed by the books and periodicals which you were so good as to send me), the curious collection of letters described in the above-mentioned letter belonging to the Dr. Aglietti, which I gave, in the first instance, to Mr. Gifford to read. He thinks them very interesting as autographs; but with the exception of those pointed out by you, there are few that would afford more than extracts, to be selected by a judicious editor. I think D’Israeli, from the nature of his studies, might be trusted with their selection; and I shall be able to send them to him to-morrow, and, by this day week, I will propose a sum for them to your friend the proprietor. Pope, whose unmanly persecution of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and of her friend Lord Hervey arose from disappointed love, is, you see, no less insidiously spoken of by Lord Hervey, whose letters are good but not of the first water. Lord Orford beats them all. Gray’s letter excellent; and Lady M. W. Montagu’s ideas equal to her literary character. I have been lately reading again her letters, particularly her latest ones in her old age to her daughter, which are as full of wisdom, almost proverbial, as of beauty. I should think you may stumble upon a letter full of anecdotes of hers, which I beg you to hoard up, as I am the proprietor of her Works, and would like to introduce a new edition with any variety of this kind.

Mr. Frere is at length satisfied that you are the author of ‘Beppo.’ He had no conception that you possessed the protean talent of Shakespeare, thus to assume at will so different a character. He, and every one, continues in the same very high opinion of its great beauties. I am glad to find that you are disposed to pursue this strain, which has occasioned so much delight. Do you never think of prose?

* The proprietor of the Apollo Library and the principal publisher and bookseller in Venice, to whom Lord Byron gave an introduction to Murray, April 12, 1818. See Moore’s Life.

—though, like Lord Hervey, I suspect your thoughts fall so naturally into rhyme that you are obliged to think twice to put them in prose. Yet the specimen of prose, in the dedication to Hobhouse,* is so much admired and talked of, that I should much like to surprise the world with a more complete sample,—to be given at first anonymously. None of the dons in criticism have yet taken the field for Canto IV., but the next numbers of the Edinburgh and Quarterly will certainly contain papers upon it, which I shall put into a cover and send to you at once. The whole canto has been quoted ten times over, in the different scraps which diversity of taste has selected, in the monthly, weekly, and daily journals of the metropolis and country—so that some have selected each part as the best; and, in conclusion, the public will be as eager to receive anything from your pen as ever. I am now meditating, or rather have made preparation, to print a uniform edition of your poems in three octavo volumes. ‘Childe Harold,’ four cantos, with your own notes, will form the first volume; all the ‘Tales,’ including ‘Beppo,’ will constitute the second; and the ‘Miscellaneous Poems,’ ‘Manfred,’ &c., will fill the third. These I intend to print very handsomely, and to sell very cheap, so that every facility shall be given for their popularity. I propose to print at the same time the whole works in five small volumes; in which size, when I print the 3rd and 4th cantos and ‘Beppo,’ they will occupy seven, which is, perhaps, too many. Westall has nearly completed twenty-five beautiful designs to accompany these editions; and I trust that you will have no objection to my engraving again Phillips’s portrait, which every unbiassed person thinks by far the finest. I have just put forth two more cantos of Whistlecraft—which the knowing ones think excellent, and of which the public think nothing, for they cannot see the drift of it. I have not sold 500 copies of the first parts yet; and of ‘Beppo’ I have sold six times that quantity in a sixth part of the time, and before, indeed, it is generally known to be yours. I have heard no word more from Mr. Sotheby; and as to my having ventured upon any alteration or omission, I should as soon have scooped one of my eyes out. I am anxious to know if you are satisfied with

* Of the Fourth Canto of ‘Childe Harold.’

Mr. Hobhouse’s notes. The parts he thinks best of are those upon the Antiquities; but we feel very little interest for them, and much prefer the ‘Essay on Italian Literature,’ which, if enlarged with your Lordship’s assistance and with the addition of translations, would become a popular work, as well as one much wanted. Hobhouse set out last night for Dorchester (worn absolutely to skin and bone in a vexatious and hopeless canvass of Westminster for Mr. Kinnaird), in the neighbourhood of which he has some prospect of parliamentary success. I am glad he avoided Westminster, for after swallowing Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage by Ballot, what scope can a man have left himself?

Your Lordship’s obliged Servant, John Murray .*

Mr. Murray’s next letter to Lord Byron was:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

July 7th, 1818.

I do assure you I have rarely greater pleasure than when I am addressing you, unless it be when I am honoured by the favour of a letter from you. Latterly, I conceived that Mr. Hobhouse had been so constantly in communication with you that my omissions would not have been heeded, but I implore forgiveness, and will be less remiss in future.

I assure you that the success of the fourth canto has been equal to either of the former volumes. It is more desultory, as Gifford said at first, but the parts taken separately are each and all considered equal, and in some instances surpassing, anything preceding them. No critique of note has yet appeared upon the poem, but if anything able on the subject appears I shall instantly send it to you.

You will have read with surprise and regret an account of the death of your friend Monk Lewis† on his return from a second voyage to the West Indies. He sent me his MS. notes upon the place to read, and very curious

* The answer to this letter, under date July 10, 1818, is printed in Moore’s Life.

† Matthew Gregory Lewis, commonly called “Monk” Lewis, after the title of his first novel. He had just died at the age of forty-two.

indeed they were, and I hope they will not be lost. Wilmot has positively succeeded at Newcastle-under-Lyne, and is returned M.P. Your cousin George has another daughter lately, and your friend Lady William Russell has just lost one. I fancy that the chief reason for your not hearing from either Hobhouse or Kinnaird is that for the last four months they have been completely absorbed in politics, though neither has got into Parliament. They appear to have cut the Whigs and plunged head-over-ears into Burdettism, Annual Parliaments, and Universal Suffrage by Ballot! Brougham has lost his election for Westmoreland.

May I hope that you will favour me with some work to open my campaign in November with! Have you not another lively tale like ‘Beppo’? or will you not give me some prose in three volumes?—all the adventures that you have undergone, seen, heard of, or imagined, with your reflections on life and manners. Do tell me that I may at any rate expect something by the end of September. There will be three more volumes of ‘Tales of my Landlord’ this month, which I will convey to you as speedily as possible, with Madame de Staël’s new work, ‘Sur la Révolution Française,’ which has fallen almost stillborn from the press. It is by no means good.

Lord Byron, in the midst of his Venetian and Ravenna life, seems to have forgotten his sister, Mrs. Leigh, who was much in want of ready cash about this time, and frequently applied to Mr. Murray, and from him obtained what she needed. In one of her letters she writes:—

Mrs. Leigh to John Murray.

July, 1818.

I return the Edinburgh Review, with a thousand thanks for your kindness in lending it to me. It will surely please him (Byron) whom it most concerns. I enclose a stupid letter from him, and I think you had better be silent on the subject of his silence to me. After all, regrets are

and in Byron’s ‘Detached Thoughts’ is an account of him concluding thus: “Poor fellow! he died—a martyr to his new riches—of a second visit to Jamaica.”

selfish, and that is a disposition I think we cannot too much check. If he is happy, why should I disturb him by my laments? He knows full well all I could say. I had not forgot my promise of the ‘Hours of Idleness,’ but my books are not yet all come. I send you one which I should be delighted if you would accept . . . Scratch out the name on the title-page. When the others come you may, if you prefer it, make an exchange.

Mr. Murray writes again:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

September 22nd, 1818.

I was much pleased to find, on my arrival from Edinburgh on Saturday night, your letter of the 26th of August. The former one of the 21st I received whilst in Scotland. The Saturday and Sunday previous I passed most delightfully with Walter Scott, who was incessant in his inquiries after your welfare. He entertains the noblest sentiments of regard towards you, and speaks of you with the best feelings. I walked about ten miles with him round a very beautiful estate, which he has purchased by degrees, within two miles of his favourite Melrose. He has nearly completed the centre and one wing of a castle on the banks of the Tweed, where he is the happiness as well as pride of the whole neighbourhood. He is one of the most hospitable, merry, and entertaining of mortals. He would, I am confident, do anything to serve you; and as the paper* which I now enclose is a second substantial proof of the interest he takes in your literary character, perhaps it may naturally enough afford occasion for a letter from you to him. I sent you by Mr. Hanson four volumes of a second series of ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ and four others are actually in the press. Scott does not yet avow them, but no one doubts his being their author. I should have much liked to see how you look in a full suit of prose; and the slight drapery which you have occasionally put on affords a very promising specimen. I regret, of course, your procrastination of the Memoir; but this is a subject of delicacy which should be regulated entirely by your own feelings; but the ‘Tales’* I yet hope the spirit may move

* The Review of the fourth Canto of ‘Childe Harold,’ Q. R., No. 37.

you to complete. I hope, in the search for Lady M. W. Montagu’s most interesting letters, the Doctor† may stumble upon some others of value. You told me some time ago that a lady was writing the ‘Life of Lady M. W. Montagu.’ As there may probably be some original anecdotes of that part of it which was passed in Italy, I should be glad to be favoured with a copy of it as soon as possible. I sent by Mr. Hanson a number or two of Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, and I have in a recent parcel sent the whole. I think that you will find in it a very great share of talent, and some most incomparable fun; and as I have purchased half the copyright of it, I shall feel very much obliged if you would occasionally send me some anonymous (if you please) fun to add to it, and any news, literary or scientific, that may fall in your way. If any of your literary acquaintances are disposed to communicate interesting articles, you may insure to them ten guineas a sheet; and if there be any poor fellows to whom you would like to bestow such a trifle, you can direct me accordingly. John Wilson, who wrote the article on Canto IV. of ‘Childe Harold’ (of which, by the way, I am anxious to know your opinion), has very much interested himself in the journal, and has communicated some most admirable papers. Indeed, he possesses very great talents and a variety of knowledge. I send you a very well-constructed kaleidoscope, a newly-invented toy which, if not yet seen in Venice, will I trust amuse some of your female friends.

John Murray .

The following letter is inserted here, as it does not appear in Moore’s ‘Biography’:—

Lord Byron to John Murray.

Venice, November 24th, 1818. Dear Mr. Murray,

Mr. Hanson has been here a week, and went five days ago. He brought nothing but his papers, some corn-

* Byron had written to Mr. Murray telling him that he “had several things begun, verse and prose,” that “the ‘Tales’ also are in an unfinished state. I can fix no time for their completion: they are not in the best manner.”

† Dr. Aglietti, who was collecting these letters for publication.

rubbers, and a kaleidoscope. “For what we have received the Lord make us thankful”! for without His aid I shall not be so. He—Hanson—left everything else in Chancery Lane whatever, except your copy-papers for the last Canto,* &c., which having a degree of parchment he brought with him. You may imagine his reception; he swore the books were a “waggon-load”; if they were, he should have come in a waggon; he would in that case, have come quicker than he did.

Lord Lauderdale set off from hence twelve days ago accompanied by a cargo of Poesy directed to Mr. Hobhouse, all spick and span, and in MS.; you will see what it is like. I have given it to Master Southey, and he shall have more before I have done with him.

You may make what I say here as public as you please, more particularly to Southey, whom I look upon—and will say so publicly—to be a dirty, lying rascal, and will prove it in ink—or in his blood, if I did not believe him to be too much of a poet to risk it! If he has forty reviews at his back, as he has the Quarterly, I would have at him in his scribbling capacity now that he has begun with me; but I will do nothing underhand; tell him what I say from me and every one else you please.

You will see what I have said, if the parcel arrives safe. I understand Coleridge went about repeating Southey’s lie with pleasure. I can believe it, for I had done him what is called a favour. . . . I can understand Coleridge’s abusing me—but how or why Southey, whom I had never obliged in any sort of way, or done him the remotest service, should go about fibbing and calumniating is more than I readily comprehend. Does he think to put me down with his Canting, not being able to do it with his poetry? We will try the question. I have read his review of Hunt, where he has attacked Shelley in an oblique and shabby manner. Does he know what that review has done? I will tell you; it has sold an edition of the ‘Revolt of Islam’ which otherwise nobody would have thought of reading, and few who read can understand, I for one.

Southey would have attacked me too there, if he durst, further than by hints about Hunt’s friends in general, and some outcry about an “Epicurean System” carried on by

* Of ‘Childe Harold.’

men of the most opposite habits and tastes and opinions in life and poetry (I believe) that ever had their names in the same volume—Moore, Byron, Shelley, Hazlitt, Haydon, Leigh Hunt, Lamb. What resemblance do ye find among all or any of these men? And how could any sort of system or plan be carried on or attempted amongst them? However, let Mr. Southey look to himself; since the wine is tapped, he shall drink it.

I got some books a few weeks ago—many thanks. Amongst them is Israeli’s new edition; it was not fair in you to show him my copy of his former one, with all the marginal notes and nonsense made in Greece when I was not two-and-twenty, and which certainly were not meant for his perusal, nor for that of his readers. I have a great respect for Israeli and his talents, and have read his works over and over and over repeatedly, and been amused by them greatly, and instructed often. Besides, I hate giving pain, unless provoked; and he is an author, and must feel like his brethren; and although his Liberality repaid my marginal flippancies with a compliment—the highest compliment—that don’t reconcile me to myself—nor to you. It was a breach of confidence to do this without my leave; I don’t know a living man’s book I take up so often or lay down more reluctantly than Israeli’s, and I never will forgive you—that is, for many weeks. If he had got out of humour I should have been less sorry; but even then I should have been sorry; but really he has heaped his “coals of fire” so handsomely upon my head that they burn unquenchably.

You ask me of the two reviews*—I will tell you. Scott’s is the review of one poet on another—his friend; Wilson’s, the review of a poet too, on another—his Idol; for he likes me better than he chooses to avow to the public with all his eulogy. I speak judging only from the article, for I don’t know him personally.

Here is a long letter—can you read it?

Yours ever, B.

* Of ‘Childe Harold’ in the Quarterly and the Edinburgh.

In the course of September, 1818, Lord Byron communicated to Mr. Moore that he had finished the first canto of a poem in the style and manner of ‘Beppo.’ “It is called,” he said, “‘Don Juan,’ and is meant to be a little quietly facetious upon everything; but,” he added, “I doubt whether it is not—at least so far as it has yet gone—too free for these very modest days.” In January, 1819, Lord Byron requested Mr. Murray to print for private distribution fifty copies of ‘Don Juan.” Mr. Murray urged him to occupy himself with some great work worthy of his reputation. “This you have promised to Gifford long ago, and to Hobhouse and Kinnaird since.” Lord Byron, however, continued to write out his ‘Don Juan,’ and sent the second canto in April, 1819, together with the ‘Letter of Julia,” to be inserted in the first canto.

Mr. Murray, in acknowledging the receipt of the first and second cantos, was not so congratulatory as he had formerly been. The verses contained, no doubt, some of the author’s finest poetry, but he had some objections to suggest. “I think,” he said, “you may modify or substitute other words for the lines on Romilly, whose death should save him.” But Byron entertained an extreme detestation for Romilly, because, he said, he had been “one of my assassins,” and had sacrificed him on “his legal altar”; and the verse* was allowed to stand over. “Your history,” wrote Murray, “of the plan of the progress of ‘Don Juan’ is very entertaining, but I am clear for sending him to hell, because he may favour us with a description of some of the characters whom he finds there.” Mr. Murray suggested the removal of some offensive words in Canto II. “These,” he said, “ladies may not read; the Shipwreck is a little

* St. 15, First Canto.

too particular, and out of proportion to the rest of the picture. But if you do anything it must be done with extreme caution; think of the effects of such seductive poetry! It probably surpasses in talent anything that you ever wrote. Tell me if you think seriously of completing this work, or if you have sketched the story. I am very sorry to have occasioned you the trouble of writing again the ‘Letter of Julia’; but you are always very forgiving in such cases.” The lines in which the objectionable words appeared were obliterated by Lord Byron.

From the following letter we see that Mr. Murray continued his remonstrances:—

John Murray to Lord Byron.

May 3rd, 1819.

I find that ‘Julia’s Letter’ has been safely received, and is with the printer. The whole remainder of the second canto will be sent by Friday’s post. The inquiries after its appearance are not a few. Pray use your most tasteful discretion so as to wrap up or leave out certain approximations to indelicacy.

I am, my Lord, Your faithful Servant, John Murray .

Mr. Douglas Kinnaird, who was entrusted with the business portion of this transaction, wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Douglas Kinnaird to John Murray.

June 7th, 1819. My dear Sir,

Since I had the pleasure of seeing you, I have received from Lord Byron a letter in which he expresses himself as having left to Mr. Hobhouse and myself the sole and whole discretion and duty of settling with the publisher of the MSS. which are now in your hands, the consideration to be given for them. Observing that you have advertised ‘Mazeppa,’ I feel that it is my duty to request you will name an early day—of course previous to your publishing that or any other part of the MSS.—when we may meet and receive your offer of such terms as you may deem proper for the purchase of the copyright of them. The very liberal footing on which Lord Byron’s intercourse with you in your character of publisher of his Lordship’s works has hitherto been placed, leaves no doubt in my mind that our interview need be but very short, and that the terms you will propose will be met by our assent.

The parties met, and Mr. Murray agreed to give £525 for ‘Mazeppa,’ and £1575 for the first and second cantos of ‘Don Juan,’ with ‘The Ode to Venice’ thrown in These terms were considered satisfactory, and Mr. Murray proceeded with the publication of the works. ‘Mazeppa’ came out first; and, being published with Lord Byron’s name on the title-page, that “lively, spirited, and pleasant tale,” as Gifford described it on the margin of the MS., proved exceedingly successful.

In accordance with Lord Byron’s directions to his publisher to “keep the anonymous,” Cantos I. and II. of ‘Don Juan’ appeared in London, in quarto, in July, 1819, without the name of either author, publisher, or bookseller. The book was immediately pounced upon by the critics; but it is unnecessary to quote their reviews, as they are impartially given in the latest accredited editions of Lord Byron’s poems. We may, however, give a few of those less known, from Mr. Murray’s intimate friends.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. Ryde, July 1st, 1819.

“Lord B.’s letter is shockingly amusing.* He must be mad; but then there’s method in his madness. I dread,

* Probably that written in May; printed in the ‘Life.’

however, the end. He is, or rather might be, the most extraordinary character of his age. I have lived to see three great men—men to whom none come near in their respective provinces—Pitt, Nelson, Wellington. Morality and religion would have placed our friend among them as the fourth boast of the time; even a decent respect for the good opinion of mankind might have done much now; but all is tending to displace him.”

On ‘Don Juan’ being published, Gifford again wrote to Murray from Ryde:—

“How goes on, or rather how goes off, the Don? I read the second canto this morning, and lost all patience at seeing so much beauty so wantonly and perversely disfigured. A little care, and a little wish to do right, would have made this a superlative thing. As it is, it is better than any other could have done; but this is poor praise for Lord Byron. What a store of shame and sorrow is he laying up for himself! I never much admired the vaunt of Draconianism, ‘And all this I dare do, because I dare,’ yet what but this is Lord Byron’s plea!”

Mr. Murray, who was still in communication with Mr. Blackwood, found that he refused to sell ‘Don Juan,’ because it contained personalities which he regarded as even more objectionable than those of which Murray had complained in the Magazine.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. July 21st, 1819.

“I received this morning by the coach 25 copies of ‘Don Juan,’ but without any letter to tell me who had sent them. I am sorry to say it is a book which I could not sell on any account whatever. I have therefore laid the copies aside till I receive directions whether I shall send them back, or deliver them to any one else. Had I not received a copy two days ago for the Magazine, I should probably not have had time to have looked at it, but have sold the copies to-day, without thinking about the matter. I hope you will not blame me for what I have done. I need not say how happy on all accounts I should have been if I could have done otherwise. In the Magazine which I have sent you to-day, you will see a note at p. 483 with regard to ‘Don Juan.’”

Miss Jane Waldie wrote to Mr. Murray: “Why will Lord Byron write what we may not read? The world says that you are the publisher of ‘Don Juan,’ though not nominally so. Is this true?” On the other hand, Lady Caroline Lamb informed Murray: “You cannot think how clever I think ‘Don Juan’ is, in my heart.” The poem was severely criticised, but this only increased the public interest in it, and as it bore no name, and was therefore not copyright, it was republished in cheap editions by the pirates.

Mr. John Barrow to John Murray. September 5th, 1819.

“What a tremendous attack on your friend Byron in Blackwood! If he has any feeling it must be daggers to him, but I believe he is callous to every feeling except such as we imagine demons to feel. The Quarterly, I suppose, however, will not touch him; or, if so, touch his graceful locks and blue eyes with great tenderness.”

When the copyright of ‘Don Juan’ was infringed by other publishers, it became necessary to take steps to protect it at law, and Mr. Sharon Turner was consulted on the subject. An injunction was applied for in Chancery, and the course of the negotiation will be best ascertained from the following letters:—

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.

October 21st, 1819. Dear Murray,

. . . On ‘Don Juan’ I have much apprehension. I had from the beginning, and therefore advised the separate assignment. The counsel who is settling the bill also doubts if the Chancellor will sustain the injunction. I think, when Mr. Bell comes to town, it will be best to have a consultation with him on the subject. The counsel, Mr. Loraine, shall state to him his view on the subject, and you shall hear what Mr. Bell feels upon it. Shall I appoint the consultation? The evil, if not stopped, will be great. It will circulate in a cheap form very extensively, injuring society wherever it spreads. Yet one consideration strikes me. You could wish Lord Byron to write less objectionably. You may also wish him to return you part of the £1625. If the Chancellor should dissolve the injunction on this ground, that will show Lord B. that he must expect no more copyright money for such things, and that they are too bad for law to uphold. Will not this affect his mind and purify his pen? It is true that to get this good result you must encounter the risk and expense of the injunction and of the argument upon it. Will you do this? If I laid the case separately before three of our ablest counsel, and they concurred in as many opinions that it could not be supported, would this equally affect his Lordship’s mind, and also induce him to return you an adequate proportion of the purchase money? Perhaps nothing but the Court treating him as it treated Southey* may sufficiently impress Lord B. After the consultation with Bell you will better judge. Shall I get it appointed as soon as he comes to town?

Ever yours faithfully, Sharon Turner .

Mr. Bell gave his opinion that the Court would not afford protection to the book, which, however, he admitted that he had not had time to study.

The next letter relates to the opinion of Mr. Shadwell, afterwards Vice-Chancellor:—

* In the case of Wat Tyler, see Murray’s letter to Byron in preceding chapter, April 12th, 1817.

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.

November 12th, 1819. Dear Murray,

I saw Mr. Shadwell to-day on ‘Don Juan.’ He has gone through the book with more attention than Mr. Bell had time to do. He desires me to say that he does not think the Chancellor would refuse an injunction, or would overturn it if obtained. He thinks that the passages are not of such a nature as to overturn the property of it. He has expressed to me his opinion so strongly on this point that I thought it right to mention it to you, because he is a very conscientious man. He says, “I cannot of course answer for the event, but it is my full belief that the passages will not prevent the Chancellor from suppressing the piracy.” He says it should certainly be brought forward by yourself. Judge now for yourself. Shall I have a consultation between him and Horne on the subject, for you to attend? Horne is our first man now before the Chancellor. Or will you try it without this, or abandon it?

Yours most faithfully, Sharon Turner .

The last letter from Mr. Turner to Mr. Murray on the same subject was dated a few days after the above:—

Mr. Turner to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

The truth about ‘Don Juan’ seems to be this. Shadwell, in settling the bill with Downer’s name, went carefully through the poem. He afterwards took it with him to Westminster, and I think has expressed not only his own opinion, but that of some others at the Chancery bar; for he has apologised for not returning it to me, because S. had borrowed it. His decided tone that the Court will not let the copyright be invaded has much struck me, and the more because in the case of ‘Wat Tyler’ he told me that he thought that book could not be supported. His general opinions are also not favourable to Lord B., and his taste is highly moral. Yet, though he disapproves of the passages, he is remarkably sanguine that they do not furnish sufficient ground for the Chancellor to dissolve the injunction. He says the passages are not more amatory than those of many books of which the copyright was never doubted. He added that one great tendency of the book was not an unfair one. It was to show in Don Juan’s ultimate character the ill effect of that injudicious maternal education which Don Juan is represented as having received, and which had operated injuriously upon his mind. He repeated to me several times that, as far as it was possible to foresee an event, he could not doubt of this. You have now all that I have heard before you. My own opinion has been always that of doubt. Yet Shadwell’s confidence makes me doubt my doubt. If I could, I would suppress it altogether in every form, but it can only do more mischief to let cheap editions be circulated.

Ever yours, Sharon Turner .

Whatever becomes of this, I think your idea of getting Lord B. to prune and replace highly laudable, provided he will do it effectually.

The injunction to restrain the publication of ‘Don Juan’ by piratical publishers was granted, but Lord Byron would not make any alterations in the poem as suggested by Mr. Murray. “With regard to the copyright, it is hard that you should pay for a nonentity. I will therefore refund it, which I can very well do, not having spent it, nor begun upon it; and so we shall be quits on that score.” It was not, however, necessary for Murray to claim an abatement of the copyright money, as he was now enabled to sell the work as before. Lord Byron was not deterred by the outcry about ‘Don Juan,’ for he informed Mr. Murray that he was proceeding with the third canto, as well as with the ‘Prophecy of Dante.’

Towards the end of 1819, Byron thought of returning to England. On the 8th of November he wrote to Mr. Murray:—

“If she [the Countess Guiccioli] and her husband make it up, you will perhaps see me in England sooner than you expect. If not, I will retire with her to France or America, change my name, and lead a quiet provincial life. If she gets over this, and I get over my Tertian ague, I will perhaps look in at Albemarle Street en passant to Bolivar.”

When Mr. Hobhouse, then living at Ramsbury, heard of Byron’s intention to go to South America, he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mr. Hobhouse to John Murray.

November, 1819. My dear Sir,

I own my delay, but I have been absent from Ramsbury some days, and immersed in the miserable provincial politics of my brother moon-rakers of this county. I have to thank you for your former communication, and for this of to-day. To be sure it is impossible that Lord B. should seriously contemplate, or, if he does, he must not expect us to encourage, this mad scheme. I do not know what in the world to say, but presume some one has been talking nonsense to him. Let Jim Perry go to Venezuela if he will—he may edit his ‘Independent Gazette’ amongst the Independents themselves, and reproduce his stale puns and politics without let or hindrance. But our poet is too good for a planter—too good to sit down before a fire made of mare’s legs, to a dinner of beef without salt and bread. It is the wildest of all his meditations—pray tell him. The plague and Yellow Jack, and famine and free quarter, besides a thousand other ills, will stare him in the face. No tooth-brushes, no corn-rubbers, no Quarterly Reviews. In short, plenty of all he abominates and nothing of all he loves. I shall write, but you can tell facts, which will be better than my arguments.

Very truly yours, John Hobhouse.

Byron’s half-formed intention was soon abandoned, and the Countess Guiccioli’s serious illness recalled him to Ravenna, where he remained for the next year and a half.

Hobhouse’s next letter to Murray (Jan., 1820), in which he reported “Bad news from Ravenna—a great pity indeed;” it was dated Newgate, where he had been lodged in consequence of his pamphlet entitled ‘A Trifling Mistake in Thomas Lord Erskine’s Recent Pamphlet,’ containing several very strong reflections on the House of Commons as then constituted. The matter was brought under the consideration of the House (10th Dec., 1819) by Mr. Stuart Wortley (afterwards Lord Wharncliffe), when the publication of the pamphlet was declared to be a breach of privilege, and Mr. Hobhouse, who had authorized the Right Hon. Edward Ellice to declare that he was the author, was committed to Newgate, where he remained until the dissolution of Parliament in the following February.

During his imprisonment, Mr. Hobhouse was visited by Mr. Murray and Ugo Foscolo, as well as by many of his political friends. After Mr. Murray’s visit, the Countess of Bessborough (mother of Lady Caroline Lamb) wrote to him:—

Countess of Bessborough to John Murray.

“I hope your charitable visit to Newgate succeeded. I have scarcely seen Caroline to speak to since, so know nothing about it. Pray do not mention the Waldegrave manuscripts to Sir J. Mackintosh, or any one, till after my son, Col. Ponsonby, returns from Ireland when the elections are over. I think I can almost promise you that you shall have them, but as it still depends on some circumstances that cannot be quite settled until Frederick comes back, any mention of such a project beforehand might totally defeat the whole.”

Lady Caroline Lamb also wrote to Mr. Murray from Brockett Hall, asking for information about Byron and Hobhouse.

Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray.

You have never written to tell me about him. Now, did you know the pain and agony this has given me, you had not been so remiss. If you could come here on Wednesday for one night, I have a few people and a supper. You could come by the Mail in two hours, much swifter than even in your swift carriage; and I have one million of things to say and ask also. Do tell me how that dear Radical Hob is, and pray remember me to him. I really hope you will be here at dinner or supper on Wednesday. Your bedroom shall be ready, and you can be back in Town before most people are up, though I rise here at seven.

Yours quite disturbed my mind, for want of your telling me how he [Byron] looks, what he says, if he is grown fat, if he is no uglier than he used to be, if he is good-humoured or cross-grained, putting his brows down—if his hair curls or is straight as somebody said, if he has seen Hobhouse, if he is going to stay long, if you went to Dover as you intended, and a great deal more, which, if you had the smallest tact or aught else, you would have written long ago; for as to me, I shall certainly not see him, neither do I care he should know that I ever asked after him. It is from mere curiosity I should like to hear all you can tell me about him. Pray come here immediately.

Yours, C. L.

Byron sent Murray from Ravenna (21st July, 1820) the third and fourth cantos of ‘Don Juan.’

“Recollect,” he said, “that these two cantos reckon as only one between you and me, being, in fact, the third canto cut into two, because I found it too long. . .. I have finished my translation of the ‘Morgante Maggiore’ of Pulci, which I will transcribe and send. . . . You inquire after ‘Dante’s Prophecy.’ I have not done more than six hundred lines, but will vaticinate at leisure.” [’Dante’s Prophecy’ was finished by the 14th of March, and forwarded to Murray by post.] “When I have left more than one reading,” Byron wrote, “which I have done often, you may adopt that which Gifford, Frere, Rose, Hobhouse, and others of your Utican Senate think the best or least bad.” [He next forwarded the literal translation of the episode of Francesca of Rimini.] “So,” he wrote to Murray, “you have put your name to ‘Juan,’ after all your panic and the row; you are a rare fellow!”

During the summer months of 1820, Lord Byron proceeded with his tragedy of ‘Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice,’ which was finished in July 1820, and published at the end of the year. It was produced on the stage of Drury Lane Theatre in the beginning of the following year, in spite of the poet’s urgent and repeated remonstrances. It was a play, he observed, for the closet, and not for the theatre. Mr. Gifford, much to Byron’s delight, pronounced it to be “English—genuine English.” To Murray, Mr. Gifford wrote privately:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“Lord Byron will have a pretty collection of dramas by-and-by. Let him proceed, he will do something at last. Never mind his plays not being stage-worthy; in these times it signifies not much; but he has the true dramatic turn, and fails only in his plots. If he could but get a little into the bustle of our old dramatists, absurd as it sometimes was, it would do; otherwise he must die a martyr to his simplicity and singleness. . . . After all, he is a wonderful creature. If I had him, I would keep him very carefully, and show him only on high days and holidays.”

Meanwhile, Byron proceeded with his fifth canto of ‘Don Juan,’ which, begun on October 16th, was finished on November 20th, 1820, that is, in little more than a month. The third, fourth, and fifth cantos were published together at the end of 1821, still without the name of either author or publisher. There was quite a rush for the work. The booksellers’ messengers filled the street in front of the house in Albemarle Street, and the parcels of books were given out of the window in answer to their obstreperous demands.

Notwithstanding this remarkable sale of ‘Don Juan,’ Murray hesitated about publishing any more of the cantos. After the fifth canto was published, Lord Byron informed Murray that it was “hardly the beginning of the work,” that he intended to take Don Juan through the tour of Europe, put him through the Divorce Court, and make him finish as Anacharsis Cloots in the French Revolution. Besides being influenced by his own feelings, it is possible that the following letter of Mr. Croker may have induced Mr. Murray to have nothing further to do with the work:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

Munster House, March 26th, 1820. A rainy Sunday. Dear Murray,

I have to thank you for letting me see your two new cantos [the 3rd and 4th], which I return. What sublimity! what levity! what boldness! what tenderness! what majesty! what trifling! what variety! what tediousness!—for tedious to a strange degree, it must be confessed that whole passages are, particularly the earlier stanzas of the fourth canto. I know no man of such general powers of intellect as Brougham, yet I think him insufferably tedious; and I fancy the reason to be that he has such facility of expression that he is never recalled to a selection of his thoughts. A more costive orator would be obliged to choose, and a man of his talents could not fail to choose the best; but the power of uttering all and everything which passes across his mind, tempts him to say all. He goes on without thought—I should rather say, without pause. His speeches are poor from their richness, and dull from their infinite variety. An impediment in his speech would make him a perfect Demosthenes. Something of the same kind, and with something of the same effect, is Lord Byron’s wonderful fertility of thought and facility of expression; and the Protean style of ‘Don Juan,’ instead of checking (as the fetters of rhythm generally do) his natural activity, not only gives him wider limits to range in, but even generates a more roving disposition. I dare swear, if the truth were known, that his digressions and repetitions generate one another, and that the happy jingle of some of his comical rhymes has led him on to episodes of which he never originally thought; and thus it is that, with the most extraordinary merit, merit of all kinds, these two cantos have been to me, in several points, tedious and even obscure.

As to the principles, all the world, and you, Mr. Murray, first of all, have done this poem great injustice. There are levities here and there, more than good taste approves, but nothing to make such a terrible rout about—nothing so bad as ‘Tom Jones,’ nor within a hundred degrees of ‘Count Fathom.’ I know that it is no justification of one fault to produce a greater, neither am I justifying Lord Byron. I have acquaintance none, or next to none, with him, and of course no interest beyond what we must all take in a poet who, on the whole, is one of the first, if not the very first, of our age; but I direct my observations against you and those whom you deferred to. If you print and sell ‘Tom Jones’ and ‘Peregrine Pickle,’ why did you start at ‘Don Juan’? Why smuggle it into the world and, as it were, pronounce it illegitimate in its birth, and induce so many of the learned rabble, when they could find so little specific offence in it, to refer to its supposed original state as one of original sin? If instead of this you had touched the right string and in the right place, Lord Byron’s own good taste and good nature would have revised and corrected some phrases in his poem which in reality disparage it more than its imputed looseness of principle; I mean some expressions of political and personal feelings which, I believe, he, in fact, never felt, and threw in wantonly and de gaieté de cœur, and which he would have omitted, advisedly and de bonté de cœur, if he had not been goaded by indiscreet, contradictory, and urgent criticisms, which, in some cases, were dark enough to be called calumnies. But these are blowing over, if not blown over; and I cannot but think that if Mr. Gifford, or some friend in whose taste and disinterestedness Lord Byron could rely, were to point out to him the cruelty to individuals, the injury to the national character, the offence to public taste, and the injury to his own reputation, of such passages as those about Southey and Waterloo and the British Government and the head of that Government, I cannot but hope and believe that these blemishes in the first cantos would be wiped away in the next edition; and that some that occur in the two cantos (which you sent me) would never see the light. What interest can Lord Byron have in being the poet of a party in politics, or of a party in morals, or of a party in religion? Why should he wish to throw away the suffrages (you see the times infect my dialect) of more than half the nation? He has no interest in that direction, and, I believe, has no feeling of that kind. In politics, he cannot be what he appears, or rather what Messrs. Hobhouse and Leigh Hunt wish to make him appear. A man of his birth, a man of his taste, a man of his talents, a man of his habits, can have nothing in common with such miserable creatures as we now call Radicals, of whom I know not that I can better express the illiterate and blind ignorance and vulgarity than by saying that the best informed of them have probably never heard of Lord Byron. No, no, Lord Byron may be indulgent to these jackal followers of his; he may connive at their use of his name—nay, it is not to be denied that he has given them too, too much countenance—but he never can, I should think, now that he sees not only the road but the rate they are going, continue to take a part so contrary to all his own interests and feelings, and to the feelings and interests of all the respectable part of his country. And yet it was only yesterday at dinner that somebody said that he had read or seen a letter of Lord Byron’s to somebody, saying that if the Radicals only made a little progress and showed some real force, he would hasten over and get on horseback to head them. This is evidently either a gross lie altogether, or a grosser misconstruction of some epistolary pleasantry; because if the proposition were serious, the letter never would have been shown. Yet see how a bad name is given. We were twelve at dinner, all (except myself) people of note, and yet (except Walter Scott and myself again) every human being will repeat the story to twelve others—and so on. But what is to be the end of all this rigmarole of mine? To conclude, this—to advise you, for your own sake as a tradesman, for Lord Byron’s sake as a poet, for the sake of good literature and good principles, which ought to be united, to take such measures as you may be able to venture upon to get Lord Byron to revise these two cantos, and not to make another step in the odious path which Hobhouse beckons him to pursue. There is little, very little, of this offensive nature in these cantos; the omission, I think, of five stanzas out of 215, would do all I should ask on this point; but I confess that I think it would be much better for his fame and your profit if the two cantos were thrown into one, and brought to a proper length by the retrenchment of the many careless, obscure, and idle passages which incuria fudit. I think Tacitus says that the Germans formed their plans when drunk and matured them when sober. I know not how this might answer in public affairs, but in poetry I should think it an excellent plan—to pour out, as Lord Byron says, his whole mind in the intoxication of the moment, but to revise and condense in the sobriety of the morrow. One word more: experience shows that the Pulcian style is very easily written. Frere, Blackwood’s Magaziners, Rose, Cornwall, all write it with ease and success; it therefore behoves Lord Byron to distinguish his use of this measure by superior and peculiar beauties. He should refine and polish; and by the limæ labor et mora, attain the perfection of ease. A vulgar epigram says that “easy writing is damned hard reading;” and it is one of the eternal and general rules by which heaven warns us, at every step and at every look, that this is a mere transitory life; that what costs no trouble soon perishes; that what grows freely dies early; and that nothing endures but in some degree of proportion with the time and labour it has cost to create. Use these hints if you can, but not my name.

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

But Byron would alter nothing more in his ‘Don Juan.’ He accepted the corrections of Gifford in his ‘Tragedies,’ but ‘Don Juan’ was never submitted to him. Hobhouse was occasionally applied to, because he knew Lord Byron’s handwriting; but even his suggestions of alterations or corrections of ‘Don Juan’ were in most cases declined, and moreover about this time a slight coolness had sprung up between him and Byron. When Hobhouse was standing for Westminster with Sir Francis Burdett, Lord Byron sent a song about him in a letter to Mr. Murray. It ran to the tune of ‘My Boy Tammy? O!’ “Who are now the People’s men? My boy Hobby O! Yourself and Burdett, Gentlemen, And Blackguard Hunt and Cobby O! “When to the mob you make a speech, My boy Hobby O! How do you keep without their reach The watch within your fobby O?” *

Lord Byron asked Murray to show the song not only to some of his friends—who got it by heart and had it printed in the newspapers—but also to Hobhouse himself. “I know,” said his Lordship, “that he will never forgive me, but I really have no patience with him for letting himself be put in quod by such a set of ragamuffins.” Mr. Hobhouse, however, was angry with Byron for his lampoon and with Murray for showing it to his friends. He accordingly wrote the following letter, which contains some interesting particulars of the Whig Club at Cambridge in Byron’s University days:—

Mr. Hobhouse to John Murray.

2, Hanover Square, November, 1820.

I have received your letter, and return to you Lord Byron’s. I shall tell you very frankly, because I think it

* The rest of the song is printed in Murray’s Magazine, No. 3.

much better to speak a little of a man to his face than to say a great deal about him behind his back, that I think you have not treated me as I deserved, nor as might have been expected from that friendly intercourse which has subsisted between us for so many years. Had Lord Byron transmitted to me a lampoon on you, I should, if I know myself at all, either have put it into the fire without delivery, or should have sent it at once to you. I should not have given it a circulation for the gratification of all the small wits at the great and little houses, where no treat is so agreeable as to find a man laughing at his friend. In this case, the whole coterie of the very shabbiest party that ever disgraced and divided a nation—I mean the Whigs—are, I know, chuckling over that silly charge made by Mr. Lamb on the hustings, and now confirmed by Lord Byron, of my having belonged to a Whig club at Cambridge. Such a Whig as I then was, I am now. I had no notion that the name implied selfishness and subserviency, and desertion of the most important principles for the sake of the least important interest. I had no notion that it implied anything more than an attachment to the principles the ascendency of which expelled the Stuarts from the Throne. Lord Byron belonged to this Cambridge club, and desired me to scratch out his name, on account of the criticism in the Edinburgh Review on his early poems; but, exercising my discretion on the subject, I did not erase his name, but reconciled him to the said Whigs. The members of the club were but few, and with those who have any marked politics amongst them, I continue to agree at this day. They were but ten, and you must know most of them—Mr. W. Ponsonby, Mr. George O’Callaghan, the Duke of Devonshire, Mr. Dominick Browne, Mr. Henry Pearce, Mr. Kinnaird, Lord Tavistock, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Byron, and myself. I was not, as Lord Byron says in the song, the founder of this club;* on the contrary, thinking myself of mighty importance in those days, I recollect very well that some difficulty attended my consenting to belong to the club, and I have by me a letter from Lord Tavistock, in which the * “But when we at Cambridge were My boy Hobbie O! If my memory do not err, You founded a Whig Clubbie O!” distinction between being a Whig party man and a Revolution Whig is strongly insisted upon.

I have troubled you with this detail in consequence of Lord Byron’s charge, which he, who despises and defies, and has lampooned the Whigs all round, only invented out of wantonness, and for the sake of annoying me—and he has certainly succeeded, thanks to your circulating this filthy ballad. As for his Lordship’s vulgar notions about the mob, they are very fit for the Poet of the Morning Post, and for nobody else. Nothing in the ballad annoyed me but the charge about the Cambridge club, because nothing else had the semblance of truth; and I own it has hurt me very much to find Lord Byron playing into the hands of the Holland House sycophants, for whom he has himself the most sovereign contempt, and whom in other days I myself have tried to induce him to tolerate.

I shall say no more on this unpleasant subject except that, by a letter which I have just received from Lord Byron, I think he is ashamed of his song. I shall certainly speak as plainly to him as I have taken the liberty to do to you on this matter. He was very wanton and you very indiscreet; but I trust neither one nor the other meant mischief, and there’s an end of it. Do not aggravate matters by telling how much I have been annoyed. Lord Byron has sent me a list of his new poems and some prose, all of which he requests me to prepare for the press for him. The monied arrangement is to be made by Mr. Kinnaird. When you are ready for me, the materials may be s’ent to me at this place, where I have taken up my abode for the season.

I remain, very truly yours, John Cam Hobhouse .

Towards the end of 1820, Lord Byron wrote a long letter to Mr. Murray on Mr. Bowles’s strictures on the ‘Life and Writings of Pope.’ It was a subject perhaps unworthy of his pen, but being an ardent admirer of Pope, he thought it his duty to “bowl him [Bowles] down.” “I mean to lay about me,” said Byron, “like a dragon, till I make manure of Bowles for the top of Parnassus.” Murray submitted Lord Byron’s letter in defence of Pope to his friend Gifford, who cut out a good deal of it before publication.

“It will be unsafe,” he said, “to publish it as it stands. The letter is not very refined, but it is vigorous and to the purpose. Bowles requires checking. I hope, however, that Lord B. will not continue to squander himself thus. When will he resume his majestic march, and shake the earth again?”

After some revision, the first and second letters to Bowles were published, and were well received.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

March 20th, 1821. Dear Lord Byron,

The pamphlet on Bowles is deemed excellent, and is to be published on Saturday; the note on Lady M. W. Montagu, though also very good, Mr. Gifford recommends to be suppressed. The letter about the Hellespont will appear in the next London Magazine. The fatal death of its late editor, poor Scott, in a duel, you will have read of; he has left a widow, a very superior woman and two infant children, with a shilling; and a committee, of which Sir James Mackintosh is the head and your humble servant the tail, are endeavouring to form a subscription for them, and if you please I shall be glad to put your name down for £10.

The ‘Doge of Venice’ will now come out, with the ‘Prophecy of Dante,’ at a most happy time, when we are just now interested for Italy; nothing could be better; it is nearly worked off, and will be out next week.

I long to know what you propose to do; will these wars, of which our lives may not see the end, for all Europe will mingle indiscriminately,—will they bring you to England, or will Lady Noel’s death, which they tell me from good authority must immediately take place, do so?

By the way, Hobhouse spoke to Lord Grey about the impropriety of allowing a play, not intended for performance, to be acted on the stage. Earl Grey spoke to the Lord Chancellor, who said that he would grant an injunction.

We as yet can get no certain news from Italy.

I am, my Lord, Your faithful servant, John Murray .

Mr. Hobhouse also had a grievance against Mr. Bowles. To Mr. Murray he wrote:—

Mr. Hobhouse to John Murray.

May, 1821.

I hear Parson Bowles goes about abusing me, relying on my forbearance, or on what he may think his vast capacity for satire. The dirty dog crouches and creeps to Lord Byron, but thinks he may safely attack me. He may find himself mistaken one day or the other. In the meantime, as he is fond of parody, he may have something in that shape which you will find overleaf. “Should Parson Bowles yourself or friend compare To some French cut-throat, if you please, Santerre— Or heap, malignant, on your living head The smut and trash he pour’d on Pope when dead, Say what reply—or how with him to deal— Sot without shame and fool that cannot feel? You would not parley with a printers’ hack— You cannot cane him, for his coat is black; Reproof and chastisement are idly spent On one who calls a kick a compliment. Unwhipp’d, then, leave him to lampoon and lie, Safe in his parson’s guise and infamy.”

Truly yours, John C. Hobhouse .

The tragedy of ‘Sardanapalus,’ the last three acts of which had been written in a fortnight, was despatched to Murray, on the 30th of May, 1821, and was within a few weeks followed by ‘The Two Foscari: an Historical Tragedy’—which had been composed within a month—and on the 10th of September by ‘Cain, a Mystery.’ This immense quantity of literary work accomplished in so short a time, showed that Byron was in full writing power. All these dramas were written at Ravenna. “I am mortified,” wrote Byron to Murray (Sept. 20th, 1821), “that Gifford don’t take to my new dramas . . . I regret his demur the more that he has been always my grand patron, and I know no praise which would compensate me in my own mind for his censure.”

What Gifford said of Lord Byron’s works may best be shown by two extracts from his letters to Murray. The first relates to the new cantos of ‘Don Juan,’ which appeared in August, 1821; the second to the tragedy of ‘The Two Foscari.’

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. August 7th, 1821.

“What can Lord Byron propose to himself by forcing the publication of these cantos? They will not add to his fame, and this is what he should now take care of. Our friend Sir Walter makes an occasional sacrifice, but then he has a powerful motive; and besides, though he may play with his talents, he never trifles with his character. I could say more, but, alas! cui bono?”

August 15th. 1821.

“I knew Lord Byron would not be satisfied unless he saw himself in print. He must occupy the public eye, and all that his friends have to lament is that his taste of fame is so indiscriminate. I have often heard Lord Grosvenor say, when a young man, that he did not know the difference between boiled beef and a delicate loin of veal. Lord Byron’s case is worse.”

John Murray to Lord Byron.

Cheltenham, August 12, 1821.

I have this day received your most obliging letter, with a packet inclosing notes for ‘Sardanapalus’ and the ‘Foscari,’ which go immediately to the printer. As you so particularly desire the immediate publication of these two tragedies it shall be done. At present Drury Lane Theatre, the most ravenous, is opened for the summer season, and therefore I presume that I am acting according to the spirit of your wishes, in having the plays ready to put forth as soon as both theatres are closed. I told you in my last what Mr. G. had said privately to me about ‘Sardanapalus.’ The two first acts of the ‘Foscari’ he thinks have more life than the first Doge. Mr. Gifford is at Ramsgate, but it is doing him no good, and I begin to entertain serious apprehensions about him, and how I am to supply his place I know not; in all my range of literary acquaintances there is not one that is the least like him in the union of so many and such variety of qualifications.

I had the good fortune to sit by Sir W. Scott in the Hall during the Coronation—a sight which I would not have missed for anything—and he declared it had infinitely surpassed all that he could have conceived possible. Scott never ceases to talk of you with the most firm regard.

I am here for a month on account of my wife’s health, which has been precarious since her late severe and dangerous illness.

I suspect Drury Lane will not close, as it has within these ten days only presented a most superb imitation of the Coronation, at a most enormous expense, and it will require a month to repay them. And the Queen’s death, too, interfered, and everybody has escaped from town. Copleston is here and Professor Monk.

I remain, dear Lord Byron, Your grateful and faithful servant, John Murray .

John Murray to Lord Byron.

Cheltenham, September 6th, 1821.

I am much delighted by your Lordship’s kind letter of the 16th of August, which allows me to hope that your rage against me [because of mistakes of the printer] has abated. The same post brings me a letter from Town, in answer to my constant inquiries after the bust: “The busts of Lord B. are arrived; the ship is now under quarantine; I enclose an order for their delivery for you to sign;” so that I expect to find them on my return. It is curious that, after waiting for this bust for years, it should at length arrive in the same week with one of Sir Walter Scott* (a very fine cast), which Chantrey has obligingly presented to me.

Don’t be offended with Holmes;† you were of great essential service in putting him in the way to make a livelihood; but it is very long before, in his profession, he can gain one. If you wanted me to come out to you it would be very different. Neither be afraid of our Funds‡ breaking. When they go, there will be so many on the highway that a noble freebooter will have a bad chance. I bet sixpence they will last our time. I will send your thanks to James Smith,§ who will be much pleased.

Many persons besides you have at first supposed that I was the person of the same name connected with the Constitutional Association, but without consideration; for on what occasion have I identified myself with a party? My connexions are, I believe, even more numerous amongst the Whigs than the Tories. Indeed the Whigs have nearly driven away the Tories from my house; and Jeffrey said, “If you wish to meet the most respectable of the Whigs, you must be introduced to Mr. Murray’s room.”

You hint that I am a little ungrateful to you, I think;

* Scott had been made a baronet in April, 1820.

† The miniature-painter who had been summoned to Venice by Byron.

‡ About this time Lord Byron was—or constantly professed himself to be—in great anxiety concerning the Public Funds, in which some of the proceeds of the sale of Newstead were invested.

§ Joint author of the ‘Rejected Addresses.’

but, upon my soul, you will find my occasional apparent inattention arises from no causes but constitutional indolence, and now distraction from having so many correspondents and such incessant interruption to my writing to them. But in essentials I trust you can never find me wanting.

I forgot in my former letter to notice a hint in yours respecting an additional sum to Mr. Moore. The purchase which I have made of the ‘Memoirs’ is perfectly con amore. As a matter of mere business, if I placed the £2000 in the funds (supposing they did not break), in fourteen years (the least annuity value of the author’s life) it would become £4000. Moore should not show the ‘Memoirs’ to any one now, I think.

Gifford always mentions you with unabated regard, as do Scott, Rose, and many more. Heber (Richard) has succeeded in his long desired election for Oxford. The Jerseys have gone abroad to resuscitate. I have sent the ‘Blue Stockings’* to amuse Mr. G., and it shall be forwarded in proof on my return. If you had the local knowledge it would become an excellent work. Accept my very kindest compliments, and be assured that I always am, dearest Lord Byron,

Your Lordship’s faithful Servant, John Murray .

The three dramas, ‘Sardanapalus,’ ‘The Two Foscari,’ and ‘Cain, a Mystery,’ were published together in December, 1821, and Mr. Murray paid Lord Byron for them the sum of £2710. ‘Cain’ gave rise to much controversy, while ‘Sardanapalus’ was especially admired; Mr. Hobhouse wrote that it interested him very deeply, though it might be thought fantastical and unnatural by some.

Mr. Hobhouse to John Murray. Ramsbury Manor, Hungerford, October 22nd, 1821.

“After all,” he continued, “if it be not presumptuous in me to say so, I should venture to assert that tragedy-

* The Blues which appeared in the Liberal.

writing is not Lord Byron’s forte; that is to say, that it will not turn out to be the best thing that he can do. According to my poor way of thinking, the ‘Corsair’ and the Fourth Canto [of ‘Childe Harold’] will always bear away the palm.

“Lord Byron asks me if you have shown his ‘Cain’ to me. If you can get a heavy frank, do send it down here. I should like to read it. He tells me he has requested you to enclose no more criticisms, as they annoy instead of improving him, and, as he says, ‘take off his attention, which may be better employed than in listening either to libels or flattery.’ I know what he means well enough, and I dare say you do. The injunction, however, will save you some trouble.”

On the appearance of ‘Cain’ it was reprinted in a cheap form by two booksellers, under the impression that the Court of Chancery would not protect it, and it therefore became necessary to take out an injunction to restrain these piratical publishers. The tragedy was, moreover, unmercifully handled in most of the critical journals, and was made the subject of a separate essay, entitled ‘A Remonstrance addressed to Mr. Murray respecting a recent publication; by Oxoniensis.’ This contained a violent attack on “the obsolete trash, the very offscourings of Bayle and Voltaire, which your noble employer has made you pay for as though it were first-rate poetry and sound metaphysics.”

And yet ‘Cain’ was a masterly work, dedicated, by his consent, to Sir Walter Scott, who, in writing to Mr. Murray, described it as “a very grand and tremendous drama.”

Sir W. Scott to John Murray.

“I do not know that his Muse has ever taken so lofty a flight amid her former soarings. He has certainly matched Milton on his own ground. Some part of the language is bold, and may shock one class of readers, whose line will be adopted by others out of affectation or envy. But then they must condemn ‘Paradise Lost’ if they have a mind to be consistent. The fiend-like reasoning and bold blasphemy of the fiend and of his pupil lead exactly to the point which was to be expected—the commission of the first murder and the ruin and despair of the perpetrator. . . . The great key to the mystery is, perhaps, the imperfection of our own faculties, which see and feel strongly the partial evils which press upon us, but know too little of the general system of the universe to be aware how the existence of this is to be reconciled with the benevolence of the great Creator.”

When Lord Byron heard of the violent attack on Mr. Murray by Oxoniensis, he wrote to him:—

Lord Byron to John Murray. Pisa, February 8th, 1822.

“How, or in what manner, you can be considered responsible for what I publish, I am at a loss to conceive. If ‘Cain’ be blasphemous, ‘Paradise Lost’ is blasphemous; and the very words of the Oxford gentleman, ‘Evil, be thou my good,’ are from that very poem, from the mouth of Satan; and is there anything more in that of Lucifer in the Mystery? ‘Cain’ is nothing more than a drama, not a piece of argument. . . . The attempt to bully you, because they think it won’t succeed with me, seems to me as atrocious an attempt as ever disgraced the times. What! when Gibbon’s, Hume’s, Priestley’s, and Drummond’s publishers have been allowed to rest in peace for seventy years, are you to be singled out for a work of fiction, not of history or argument? There must be something at the bottom of this—some private enemy of your own; it is otherwise incredible. I can only say, ‘Me, me; adsum qui feci’; that any proceeding directed against you, I beg, may be transferred to me, who am willing, and ought, to endure them all; that if you have lost money by the publication, I will refund any or all of the copyright; that I desire you will say that both you and Mr. Gifford remonstrated against the publication, as also Mr. Hobhouse; that I alone am the person who, either legally or otherwise, should bear the burden. If they prosecute, I will come to England—that is, if by meeting it in my own person I can save yours. Let me know. You shan’t suffer for me if I can help it. Make any use of this letter you please.”

Mr. Murray took an early opportunity of consulting Mr. Sharon Turner on the subject of ‘Cain.’ The result was the application of Mr. Shadwell to Lord Eldon, then Chancellor, for an injunction to protect Mr. Murray’s property in Lord Byron’s ‘Cain.’ Mr. Turner reported to Mr. Murray the result of his first interview with counsel:—

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray. January 31st, 1822.

“Mr. Shadwell, whom I have just seen, has told me that he had read ‘Cain’ some time ago,—that he thinks it contains nothing but what a bookseller can be fairly justified in publishing, that it is not worse than many parts in ‘Paradise Regained’ and in ‘Paradise Lost.’ It is a dramatic exhibition of Lucifer speaking as Lucifer—often very absurdly. . . He is King’s Counsel and a religious man. He thinks it can hurt no reasonable mind. He will lead the case. If you do not apply, nothing is so likely to provoke a society to an indictment as letting these men go on in their piracy.”

The case came before Lord Chancellor Eldon on the 9th of February. Mr. Shadwell, Mr. Spence, and Sergeant Copley were retained by Mr. Murray, and after considerable discussion the injunction was refused, the Lord Chancellor intimating that the publisher must establish his right to the publication at law, and obtain the decision of a jury, on which he would grant the injunction required. This was done accordingly, and the copyright in ‘Cain’ was thus secured.

During Lord Byron’s residence at Pisa, Mr. Murray’s half-brother Archibald, an officer in H.M.S. Rochfort, lying off Leghorn, resolved on visiting him. The following is his account, written to his wife, then at Naples:—

Mr. Archibald Murray, R.N., to Mrs. A. Murray. August 31st, 1822.

“We arrived at Pisa yesterday, and stopped there for the night on my account, that I might see if Lord Byron, who is still there, was accessible. I sent him a note, to which a very civil answer was immediately returned; but without waiting for an answer, I proceeded to his mansion soon after my note, sent up my card, and was at once admitted, which was the more civil as I have now reason to believe that I called at an unseasonable hour, and was not expected, he having written to appoint another. However, as soon as his Lordship had apparelled (for I could perceive that my card had found him en déshabille ) he received me, and was very courteous, agreeable, and gay. I was with him about an hour, and on parting had his permission, not only graciously but cordially (as I thought), to repeat my visit on returning to Pisa. He seemed in good spirits, and careless of the evil reports against his works.”

September 16th.

“At my return to Pisa the noble poet granted me another interview. He conversed with me quite familiarly, speaking very freely about himself, his political sentiments, his writings, and my brother. But you must have patience and wait till we meet to know what he said on those subjects, for I cannot impart them at present.

“My Lord Byron is not tall, but of moderate stature. He is rather stout than thin. He is considered handsome. I have heard him called very handsome, and he certainly has very comely features; but his countenance is not on the Roman or Grecian model of elegance. It is round and full, and might be less agreeable in a different person. The emotions of his poetical spirit animate and beautify his face. His eye has the expression of a man of genius. He wears his hair rather longer than is the present custom for gentlemen, though in him it is not unpleasing. It is just long enough to curl gracefully. The defect in one of his feet is so well concealed by his dress that it is not observable when he sits or stands. The portrait prefixed to his works resembles him very well; and a statue of him which I saw at Florence is also a very good likeness. It is a bust intended for John Murray. I am not so well able to give a description of his person as another might be, because I approached him both times with some commotion, and because, in both my interviews, my ears were far more greedy than my eyes. I was much more intent upon his conversation than his person—more anxious to penetrate his character than to scrutinize his form.

On the death of Allegra, Lord Byron entrusted to Mr. Murray the painful duty of making arrangements for the burial of the remains in Harrow Church. Mr. Cunningham, the clergyman of Harrow, wrote in answer to Mr. Murray:—

Rev. J. W. Cunningham to John Murray.

August 20th, 1822. Sir,

Mr. Henry Drury was so good as to communicate to me a request conveyed to you by Lord Byron respecting the burial of a child in this church. Mr. H. Drury will probably have also stated to you my willingness to comply with the wish of Lord Byron. Will you forgive me, however, for so far trespassing upon you (though a stranger) as to suggest an inquiry whether it might not be practicable and desirable to fulfil for the present only a part of his Lordship’s wish—by burying the child, and putting up a tablet with simply its name upon the tablet; and thus leaving Lord B. more leisure to reflect upon the character of the inscription he may wish to be added. It does seem to me that whatever he may wish in the moment of his distress about the loss of this child, he will afterwards regret that he should have taken pains to proclaim to the world what he will not, I am sure, consider as honourable to his name. And if this be probable, then it appears to me the office of a true friend not to suffer him to commit himself but to allow his mind an opportunity of calm deliberation. I feel constrained to say that the inscription he proposed will be felt by every man of refined taste, to say nothing of sound morals, to be an offence against taste and propriety. My correspondence with his Lordship has been so small that I can scarcely venture myself to urge these objections. You perhaps will feel no such scruple. I have seen no person who did not concur in the propriety of stating them. I would entreat, however, that should you think it right to introduce my name into any statement made to Lord Byron, you will not do it without assuring him of my unwillingness to oppose the smallest obstacle to his wishes, or give the slightest pain to his mind. The injury which, in my judgment, he is from day to day inflicting upon society is no justification for measures of retaliation and unkindness.

Your obedient and faithful Servant, J. W. Cunningham .

No communication having been received by the Rector, he placed the application from Lord Byron before the churchwardens.

Rev. J. W. Cunningham to John Murray.

“The churchwardens have been urged to issue their prohibition by several leading and influential persons, laymen, in the parish. You are aware that as to ex-parishioners the consent of the churchwardens is no less necessary than my own; and that therefore the enclosed prohibition is decisive as to the putting up of the monument. You will oblige me by making known to Lord Byron the precise circumstances of the case.

I am, your obedient Servant, J. W. Cunningham .

The prohibition was as follows:—

Harrow, September 17th, 1822. Honoured Sir,

I object on behalf of the parish to admit the tablet of Lord Byron’s child into the church.

James Winkley , Churchwarden.

The remains of Allegra, after long delay, were at length buried in the church, just under the present door mat, over which the congregation enter the church; but no memorial tablet or other record of Allegra appears on the walls of Harrow Church.

CHAPTER XVII. BYRON’S DEATH AND THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS MEMOIRS.

In any work dealing with a large number of transactions, which, though carried on concurrently, are allied to one another by nothing save their accidental association with one individual, the difficulties of maintaining the even, consecutive current of the narrative are obviously so great as to be almost insurmountable.

In these volumes it has been found impossible to present a strictly chronological record of Mr. Murray’s life, and we have endeavoured so to group his correspondence as to lay before our readers the various episodes which go to form the business life of a publisher. In pursuance of this plan we now proceed to narrate the closing incidents of his friendship with Lord Byron, reserving to subsequent chapters the various other transactions in which he was engaged.

During the later months of Byron’s residence in Italy this friendship had suffered some interruption, due in part perhaps to questions which had arisen out of the publication of ‘Don Juan,’ and in part to the interference of the Hunts. With the activity aroused by his expedition to Greece, Byron’s better nature reasserted itself, and his last letter to his publisher, though already printed in Moore’s Life, cannot be omitted from these pages:—

Lord Byron to John Murray.

Missolonghi, February 25th, 1824.

I have heard from Mr. Douglas Kinnaird that you state “a report of a satire on Mr. Gifford having arrived from Italy, said to be written by me! but that you do not believe it.” I dare say you do not, nor any body else, I should think. Whoever asserts that I am the author or abettor of anything of the kind on Gifford lies in his throat. I always regarded him as my literary father, and myself as his prodigal son; if any such composition exists, it is none of mine. You know as well as anybody upon whom I have or have not written; and you also know whether they do or did not deserve that same. And so much for such matters.

You will perhaps be anxious to hear some news from this part of Greece (which is the most liable to invasion); but you will hear enough through public and private channels. I will, however, give you the events of a week, mingling my own private peculiar with the public; for we are here jumbled a little together at present.

On Sunday (the 15th, I believe) I had a strong and sudden convulsive attack, which left me speechless, though not motionless—for some strong men could not hold me; but whether it was epilepsy, catalepsy, cachexy, or apoplexy, or what other exy or epsy, the doctors have not decided; or whether it was spasmodic or nervous, &c.; but it was very unpleasant, and nearly carried me off, and all that. On Monday, they put leeches to my temples, no difficult matter, but the blood could not be stopped till eleven at night (they had gone too near the temporal artery for my temporal safety), and neither styptic nor caustic would cauterise the orifice till after a hundred attempts.

On Tuesday a Turkish brig of war ran on shore. On Wednesday, great preparations being made to attack her, though protected by her consorts, the Turks burned her and retired to Patras. On Thursday a quarrel ensued between the Suliotes and the Frank guard at the arsenal: a Swedish officer was killed, and a Suliote severely wounded, and a general fight expected, and with some difficulty prevented. On Friday, the officer was buried; and Captain Parry’s English artificers mutinied, under pretence that their lives were in danger, and are for quitting the country:—they may.

On Saturday we had the smartest shock of an earthquake which I remember (and I have felt thirty, slight or smart, at different periods; they are common in the Mediterranean), and the whole army discharged their arms, upon the same principle that savages beat drums, or howl, during an eclipse of the moon:—it was a rare scene altogether—if you had but seen the English Johnnies, who had never been out of a cockney workshop before!—or will again, if they can help it—and on Sunday, we heard that the Vizier is come down to Larissa, with one hundred and odd thousand men.

In coming here, I had two escapes; one from the Turks (one of my vessels was taken but afterwards released), and the other from shipwreck. We drove twice on the rocks near the Scrofes (islands near the coast).

I have obtained from the Greeks the release of eight-and-twenty Turkish prisoners, men, women, and children, and sent them to Patras and Prevesa at my own charges. One little girl of nine years old, who prefers remaining with me, I shall (if I live) send, with her mother, probably, to Italy, or to England, and adopt her. Her name is Hato, or Hatagée. She is a very pretty lively child. All her brothers were killed by the Greeks, and she herself and her mother merely spared by special favour and owing to her extreme youth, she being then but five or six years old.

My health is now better, and I ride about again. My office here is no sinecure, so many parties and difficulties of every kind; but I will do what I can. Prince Mavrocordato is an excellent person, and does all in his power; but his situation is perplexing in the extreme. Still we have great hopes of the success of the contest. You will hear, however, more of public news from plenty of quarters: for I have little time to write.

Believe me, yours, &c. &c., N. Bn.

The fierce lawlessness of the Suliotes had now risen to such a height that it became necessary, for the safety of the European population, to get rid of them altogether; and, by some sacrifices on the part of Lord Byron, this object was at length effected. The advance of a month’s pay by him, and the discharge of their arrears by the Government (the latter, too, with money lent for that purpose by the same universal paymaster), at length induced these rude warriors to depart from the town, and with them vanished all hopes of the expedition against Lepanto.

Byron died at Missolonghi on April 19th, 1824, and when the body arrived in London, Murray, on behalf of Mr. Hobhouse, who was not personally acquainted with Dr. Ireland, the Dean of Westminster, wrote to him, conveying “the request of the executors and nearest relatives of the deceased for permission that his Lordship’s remains may be deposited in Westminster Abbey, in the most private manner, at an early hour in the morning.”

Dr. Ireland to John Murray.

Islip, Oxford, July 8th, 1824. Dear Sir,

No doubt the family vault is the most proper place for the remains of Lord Byron. It is to be wished, however, that nothing had been said publicly about Westminster Abbey before it was known whether the remains could be received there. In the newspapers, unfortunately, it has been proclaimed by somebody that the Abbey was to be the spot, and, on the appearance of this article, I have been questioned as to the truth of it from Oxford. My answer has been that the proposal has been made, but civilly declined. I had also informed the members of the church at Westminster (after your first letter) that I could not grant the favour asked. I cannot, therefore, answer now that the case will not be mentioned (as it has happened) by some person or other who knows it. The best thing to be done, however, by the executors and relatives, is to carry away the body, and say as little about it as possible. Unless the subject is provoked by some injudicious parade about the remains, perhaps the matter will draw little or no notice.

Yours very truly, J. Ireland .

The funeral took place at Hucknall Torkard Church, near Newstead, on July 16. The allusion in the following letter is to the remarkable incident of Lady Caroline Lamb accidentally meeting the funeral procession on its way down from London to Nottinghamshire.

Lady Caroline Lamb was so ill at this time that her letter was written by an amanuensis.

Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray.

Brocket Hall, July 13th, 1824. My dear Sir,

I have been more ill than I can express, or I should have written to you. I wish I could see you. It is surprising to me that I have not heard from Hobhouse. Will you write and tell me every particular of what has passed since I saw you? Lord Byron’s hearse came by our gates yesterday. You may judge what I felt. Tell Hobhouse to see about my pictures, and letters and drawings. I will do anything he wishes about Lord Byron’s letters. I am in no anxiety about my own; only you know that they were the most imprudent possible, and, for others’ sakes, it were best to have them destroyed. There are two or three of Lord Byron’s letters to me I should like to keep; all the rest Hobhouse may have. I wish to see Fletcher—is it possible? You may show this letter to Mrs. Leigh or Lady Byron, and tell them I am too ill to write myself. Lord Byron’s death has made an impression on me which I cannot express. I am very sorry I ever said one unkind word against him. I am sure, if you knew how ill I have been, and am, you would come down and see me, for I have a great deal to say which I cannot write.

This mention of the Byron letters requires some explanation. Several years before, with a view to the Memoirs, Lord Byron had directed Mr. Moore, through Mr. Murray, to make inquiries as to some of his letters to Lady Caroline Lamb, Lady Cowper, Mr. Long, Mrs. Chaworth, and others. Lord Byron added:—

Lord Byron to John Murray. September 28th, 1822.

“If, by your own management, you can extract any of my epistles from Lady Caroline Lamb, they might be of use in your collection (sinking, of course, the names and all such circumstances as might hurt living feelings, or those of survivors); they treat of more topics than love occasionally.”

The death of Byron brought into immediate prominence the question of his autobiographical memoirs, the MS. of which he had given to Moore, who was at that time his guest at La Mira, near Venice, in 1819.

“A short time before dinner,” wrote Moore, “he left the room, and in a minute or two returned carrying in his hand a white-leather bag. ‘Look here,’ he said, holding it up, ‘this would be worth something to Murray, though you, I daresay, would not give sixpence for it.’ ‘What is it?’ I asked. ‘My Life and Adventures,’ he answered. On hearing this I raised my hands in a gesture of wonder. ‘It is not a thing,’ he continued, ‘that can be published during my lifetime, but you may have it if you like: there, do whatever you please with it.’”

Moore was greatly gratified by the gift, and said the Memoirs would make a fine legacy for his little boy. Lord Byron informed Mr. Murray by letter what he had done. “They are not,” he said, “for publication during my life, but when I am cold you may do what you please.” In a subsequent letter to Mr. Murray, Lord Byron said: “As you say my prose is good, why don’t you treat with Moore for the reversion of my Memoirs?—conditionally, recollect; not to be published before decease. He has the permission to dispose of them, and I advised him to do so.” Moore thus mentions the subject in his Memoirs:—

“May 28th, 1820.—Received a letter at last from Lord Byron, through Murray, telling me he had informed Lady B. of his having given me his Memoirs for the purpose of their being published after his death, and offering her the perusal of them in case she might wish to confute any of his statements. Her note in answer to this offer (the original of which he enclosed me) is as follows:”—

Kirkby Mallory, March 10th, 1820.

I received your letter of January 1st, offering for my perusal a Memoir of part of my life. I decline to inspect it I consider the publication or circulation of such a composition at any time is prejudicial to Ada’s future happiness. For my own sake I have no reason to shrink from publication; but notwithstanding the injuries which I have suffered, I should lament more of the consequences.

A. Byron . To Lord Byron.*

Moore received the continuation of Lord Byron’s ‘Memoirs’ on the 26th of December, 1820, the postage amounting to forty-six francs and a half. “He advises me,” said Moore in his Diary, “to dispose of the reversion of the MS. now.” Accordingly, Moore, being then involved in pecuniary responsibilities by the defalcations of his deputy in Bermuda, endeavoured to dispose of the ‘Memoirs of Lord Byron.’ He first wrote to the Messrs. Longman, who did not offer him enough; and then to Mr. Murray, who offered him the sum of 2000 guineas, on condition that he should be the editor of the ‘Memoirs,’ and write the ‘Life of Lord Byron.’

* For Byron’s reply to this letter, see Moore’s Memoirs, iii. 115.

John Murray to Lord Byron.

July 24th, 1821. Dear Lord Byron,

I have just received a letter from Mr. Moore—the subject of it is every way worthy of your usual liberality—and I had not a moment’s hesitation in acceding to a proposal which enabled me in any way to join in assisting so excellent a fellow. I have told him—which I suppose you will think fair—that he should give me all additions that you may from time to time make—and in case of survivorship edit the whole—and I will leave it as an heirloom to my son.

I have written to accede to Mr. Moore’s proposal.

I remain, dear Lord Byron, Your grateful and faithful Servant, John Murray .

Mr. Moore accepted the proposal, and then proceeded to draw upon Mr. Murray for part of the money. It may be added that the agreement between Murray and Moore gave the former the right of publishing the ‘Memoirs’ three months after his Lordship’s death. When that event was authenticated, the manuscript remained at Mr. Murray’s absolute disposal if Moore had not previously redeemed it by the repayment of the 2000 guineas.

During the period that Mr. Moore had been in negotiation with the Longmans and Murray respecting the purchase of the Memoirs, he had given “Lady Holland the MS. to read.” Lord John Russell also states, in his ‘Memoirs of Moore,’ that he had read “the greater part, if not the whole,” and that he should say that some of it was too gross for publication. When the Memoirs came into the hands of Mr. Murray, he entrusted the manuscript to Mr. Gifford, whose opinion coincided with that of Lord John Russell. A few others saw the Memoirs, amongst them Washington Irving and Mr. Luttrell. Irving says, in his ‘Memoirs,’ that Moore showed him the Byron recollections, and that they were quite unpublishable.

Mr. Moore himself seems to have been thrown into some doubt as to the sale of the manuscript by the opinion of his friends. “Lord Holland,” he said, “expressed some scruples as to the sale of Lord Byron’s Memoirs, and he wished that I could have got the 2000 guineas in any other way; he seemed to think it was in cold blood, depositing a sort of quiver of poisoned arrows for a future warfare upon private character.”* Mr. Moore had a long conversation on the subject with Mr. J. C. Hobhouse, “who,” he says in his journal, “is an upright and honest man.” When speaking of Lord Byron, he said, “I know more about Lord Byron than any one else, and much more than I should wish any one else to know.”

Lady Byron offered, through Mr. Kinnaird, to advance 2000 guineas for the redemption of the Memoirs from Mr. Murray, but the negotiation was not brought to a definite issue. Moore, when informed of the offer, objected to Lady Byron being consulted about the matter, “for this would be treachery to Lord Byron’s intentions and wishes,” but he agreed to place the Memoirs at the disposal of Lord Byron’s sister, Mrs. Leigh, “to be done with exactly as she thought proper.” He was of opinion that those parts of the manuscript should be destroyed which were found objectionable; but that those parts should be retained which were not, for his benefit and that of the public. These were his own words.

At the same time it must be remembered that Moore’s interest in the Memoirs had now entirely ceased, for in

* Lord John Russell’s ‘Memoirs, Journals, and Correspondence of Thomas Moore,’ iii. p. 298.

consequence of the death of Lord Byron they had become Mr. Murray’s absolute property, in accordance with the terms of his purchase. But although Mr. Murray had paid so large a sum for the manuscript, and would probably have made a considerable profit by its publication, he was nevertheless willing to have it destroyed, if it should be the deliberate opinion of his Lordship’s friends and relatives that such a step was desirable.

Mr. Murray therefore put himself into communication with Lord Byron’s nearest friends and relations with respect to the disposal of the Memoirs. His suggestion was at first strongly opposed by some of them; but he urged his objections to publication with increased zeal, even renouncing every claim to indemnification for what he had paid to Mr. Moore. A meeting of those who were entitled to act in the matter was at length agreed upon, and the day preceding that on which it was to take place, Mr. Murray received the following letter from his old friend Mr. Barrow:—

Mr. Barrow to John Murray.

May 16th, 1824.

I enclose you a note from Sir William Hope, who is exceedingly interested in what concerns Lady Byron; and I have ventured to assure him that you will take no step hastily, and I have reason to believe that you have no other object than of being indemnified for the money you gave for the manuscript. It would be well got rid of, if he would take it off your hands and consign it to the flames. Entre nous, however, don’t let any of the parties see it, or know what it contains.

Yours very faithfully, John Barrow .

The meeting at length took place in Murray’s drawing-room, on the 17th of May, 1824. There were present Mr. Murray, Mr. Moore, Mr. J. C. Hobhouse, Colonel Doyle representing Lady Byron, Mr. Wilmot Horton representing Mrs. Leigh, and Mr. Luttrell, a friend of Moore’s. Young Mr. Murray—then sixteen; the only person of those assembled now living—was also in the room. The discussion was long and stormy before the meeting broke up, and nearly led to a challenge between Moore and Hobhouse. A reference to the agreement between Moore and Murray being necessary, for a long time that document could not be found; it was at length discovered, but only after the decision to commit the manuscript to the flames had been made and carried out, and the party remained until the last sheet of Lord Byron’s Memoirs had vanished in smoke up the Albemarle Street chimney.

Immediately after the burning, Mrs. Leigh wrote the following account to her friend, the Rev. Mr. Hodgson, an old friend of Byron’s:—

The Hon. Mrs. Leigh to the Rev. F. Hodgson.

“The parties, Messrs. Moore, Murray, Hobhouse, Col. Doyle for Lady B., and Mr. Wilmot for me, and Mr. Luttrell, a friend of Mr. Moore’s, met at Mr. Murray’s; and after a long dispute and nearly quarrelling, upon Mr. Wilmot stating what was my wish and opinion, the MS. was burnt, and Moore paid Murray the 2000 guineas. Immediately almost after this was done, the legal agreement between Moore and Murray (which had been mislaid) was found, and, strange to say, it appeared from it (what both had forgotten), that the property of the MS. was Murray’s bonâ fide. Consequently he had the right to dispose of it as he pleased; and as he had behaved most handsomely upon the occasion. . . . it was desired by our family that he should receive the 2000 guineas back.”*

But the Byrons did not repay the money. Mr. Moore would not permit it. He had borrowed the 2000 guineas

* ‘Memoir of the Rev. F. Hodgson,’ ii. 139-40.

from the Messrs. Longman, and before he left the room, he repaid to Mr. Murray the sum he had received for the Memoirs, together with the interest during the time that the purchase-money had remained in his possession.

The statements made in the press, as to Lord Byron’s Memoirs having been burnt, occasioned much public excitement, and many applications were made to Mr. Murray for information on the subject. Amongst those who made particular inquiry was Mr. Jerdan, of the Literary Gazette, who inclosed to Mr. Murray the paragraph which he proposed to insert in his journal. Mr. Murray informed him that the account was so very erroneous, that he desired him either to condense it down to the smallest compass, or to omit it altogether. Mr. Jerdan, however, replied that the subject was of so much public interest, that he could not refuse to state the particulars, and the following was sent to him, prepared by Mr. Murray:—

“A general interest having been excited, touching the fate of Lord Byron’s Memoirs, written by himself, and reports, confused and incorrect, having got into circulation upon the subject, it has been deemed requisite to signify the real particulars. The manuscript of these Memoirs was purchased by Mr. Murray in the year 1821 for the sum of two thousand guineas, under certain stipulations which gave him the right of publishing them three months after his Lordship’s demise. When that event was authenticated, the Manuscript consequently remained at Mr. Murray’s absolute disposal; and a day or two after the melancholy intelligence reached London, Mr. Murray submitted to the near connections of the family that the MSS. should be destroyed. In consequence of this, five persons variously concerned in the matter were convened for discussion upon it. As these Memoirs were not calculated to augment the fame of the writer, and as some passages were penned in a spirit which his better feelings since had virtually retracted, Mr. Murray proposed that they should be destroyed, con-sidering it a duty to sacrifice every view of profit to the noble author, by whose confidence and friendship he had been so long honoured. The result has been, that notwithstanding some opposition, he obtained the desired decision, and the Manuscript was forthwith committed to the flames. Mr. Murray was immediately reimbursed in the purchase-money by Mr. Moore, although Mr. Murray had previously renounced every claim to repayment.”

The particulars of the transaction are more fully expressed in the following letter written by Mr. Murray to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Robert Wilmot Horton, two days after the destruction of the Manuscript. It seems that Mr. Moore had already made a representation to Mr. Horton which was not quite correct.*

John Murray to Mr. R. Wilmot Horton.

Albemarle Street, May 19th, 1824. Dear Sir,

On my return home last night I found your letter, dated the 17th, calling on me for a specific answer whether I acknowledged the accuracy of the statement of Mr. Moore, communicated in it. However unpleasant it is to me, your requisition of a specific answer obliges me to say that I cannot, by any means, admit the accuracy of that statement; and in order to explain to you how Mr. Moore’s misapprehension may have arisen, and the ground upon which my assertion rests, I feel it necessary to trouble you with a statement of all the circumstances of the case, which will enable you to judge for yourself.

Lord Byron having made Mr. Moore a present of his Memoirs, Mr. Moore offered them for sale to Messrs. Longman and Co., who however declined to purchase them; Mr. Moore then made me a similar offer, which I accepted; and in November 1821, a joint assignment of the Memoirs was made to me by Lord Byron and Mr. Moore, with all legal technicalities, in consideration of a sum of 2000 guineas, which, on the execution of the agreement by Mr. Moore, I

* Lord J. Russell’s ‘Memoirs, &c., of Thomas Moore,’ iv. p. 188.

paid to him. Mr. Moore also covenanted, in consideration of the said sum, to act as Editor of the Memoirs, and to supply an account of the subsequent events of Lord Byron’s life, &c.

Some months after the execution of this assignment, Mr. Moore requested me, as a great personal favour to himself and to Lord Byron, to enter into a second agreement, by which I should resign the absolute property which I had in the Memoirs, and give Mr. Moore and Lord Byron, or any of their friends, a power of redemption during the life of Lord Byron. As the reason pressed upon me for this change was that their friends thought there were some things in the Memoirs that might be injurious to both, I did not hesitate to make this alteration at Mr. Moore’s request; and, accordingly, on the 6th day of May, 1822, a second deed was executed, stating that, “Whereas Lord Byron and Mr. Moore are now inclined to wish the said work not to be published, it is agreed that, if either of them shall, during the life of the said Lord Byron, repay the 2000 guineas to Mr. Murray, the latter shall redeliver the Memoirs; but that, if the sum be not repaid during the lifetime of Lord Byron, Mr. Murray shall be at full liberty to print and publish the said Memoirs within Three Months* after the death of the said Lord Byron.” I need hardly call your particular attention to the words, carefully inserted twice over in this agreement, which limited its existence to the lifetime of Lord Byron; the reason of such limitation was obvious and natural—namely that, although I consented to restore the work, while Lord Byron should be alive to direct the ulterior disposal of it, I would by no means consent to place it after his death at the disposal of any other person.

I must now observe that I had never been able to obtain possession of the original assignment, which was my sole lien on this property, although I had made repeated applications to Mr. Moore to put me into possession of the deed, which was stated to be in the hands of Lord Byron’s banker. Feeling, I confess, in some degree alarmed at the withholding the deed, and dissatisfied at Mr. Moore’s inattention

* The words “within Three Months” were substituted for “immediately,” at Mr. Moore’s request—and they appear in pencil, in his own handwriting, upon the original draft of the deed, which is still in existence.

to my interests in this particular, I wrote urgently to him in March 1823, to procure me the deed, and at the same time expressed my wish that the second agreement should either be cancelled or at once executed.

Finding this application unavailing, and becoming, by the greater lapse of time, still more doubtful as to what the intentions of the parties might be, I, in March 1824, repeated my demand to Mr. Moore in a more peremptory manner, and was in consequence at length put into possession of the original deed. But, not being at all satisfied with the course that had been pursued towards me, I repeated to Mr. Moore my uneasiness at the terms on which I stood under the second agreement, and renewed my request to him that he would either cancel it, or execute its provisions by the immediate redemption of the work, in order that I might exactly know what my rights in the property were. He requested time to consider this proposition. In a day or two he called, and told me that he would adopt the latter alternative—namely, the redemption of the Memoirs—as he had found persons who were ready to advance the money on his insuring his life; and he promised to conclude the business on the first day of his return to town, by paying the money and giving up the agreement. Mr. Moore did return to town, but did not, that I have heard of, take any proceedings for insuring his life; he positively neither wrote nor called upon me as he had promised to do (though he was generally accustomed to make mine one of his first houses of call);—nor did he take any other step, that I am aware of, to show that he had any recollection of the conversation which had passed between us previous to his leaving town, until the death of Lord Byron had, ipso facto, cancelled the agreement in question, and completely restored my absolute rights over the property of the Memoirs.

You will therefore perceive that there was no verbal agreement in existence between Mr. Moore and me, at the time I made a verbal agreement with you to deliver the Memoirs to be destroyed. Mr. Moore might undoubtedly, during Lord Byron’s life, have obtained possession of the Memoirs, if he had pleased to do so; he however neglected or delayed to give effect to our verbal agreement, which, as well as the written instrument to which it related, being cancelled by the death of Lord Byron, there was no reason whatsoever why I was not at that instant perfectly at liberty to dispose of the MS. as I thought proper. Had I considered only my own interest as a tradesman, I would have announced the work for immediate publication, and I cannot doubt that, under all the circumstances, the public curiosity about these Memoirs would have given me a very considerable profit beyond the large sum I originally paid for them; but you yourself are, I think, able to do me the justice of bearing witness that I looked at the case with no such feelings, and that my regard for Lord Byron’s memory, and my respect for his surviving family, made me more anxious that the Memoirs should be immediately destroyed, since it was surmised that the publication might be injurious to the former and painful to the latter.

As I myself scrupulously refrained from looking into the Memoirs, I cannot, from my own knowledge, say whether such an opinion of the contents was correct or not; it was enough for me that the friends of Lord and Lady Byron united in wishing for their destruction. Why Mr. Moore should have wished to preserve them I did not nor will I inquire; but, having satisfied myself that he had no right whatever in them, I was happy in having an opportunity of making, by a pecuniary sacrifice on my part, some return for the honour, and I must add, the profit, which I had derived from Lord Byron’s patronage and friendship. You will also be able to bear witness that—although I could not presume to impose an obligation on the friends of Lord Byron or Mr. Moore, by refusing to receive the repayment of the 2000 guineas advanced by me—yet I had determined on the destruction of the Memoirs without any previous agreement for such repayment:—and you know the Memoirs were actually destroyed without any stipulation on my part, but even with a declaration that I had destroyed my own private property—and I therefore had no claim upon any party for remuneration.

I remain, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, John Murray .

After the burning of the Manuscript Sir Walter Scott wrote in his diary: “It was a pity that nothing save the total destruction of Byron’s Memoirs would satisfy his executors; but there was a reason—premat nox alta.” Thomas Mitchell sympathized with Murray. He wrote, “I hope you still feel satisfied with the reflection that you have sacrificed a fortune to preserve public decency and private tranquillity.” Yet he could not but feel intense regret at the death of the Poet.

Mr. Thomas Mitchell to John Murray.

“Poor Lord Byron! No person’s death has ever yet had the effect upon me which his had. I had a full persuasion, however, that his career would be a short one, and I never took up a paper with intelligence from Greece in it without the apprehension of seeing that Lord Byron had fallen in battle—the fate which my mind had assigned to him.”

Immediately after the death of Lord Byron, Mr. Colburn published a work containing his Conversations with Mr. Medwin. These were found to contain many false as well as libellous statements against Mr. Murray, and it became necessary for him to answer them. He first consulted Mr. Sharon Turner, who conferred with Mr. (afterwards Baron) Parke on the subject.

Mr. Turner to John Murray.

October 30th, 1824. My Dear Murray,

It is vexatious enough to be talked of in print just as people choose to fancy or represent us; but it is the price we must pay for notoriety. Only the obscure can escape it, and you are not among their number. Like the King, Mr. Pitt, Southey, and everybody else, if you will have fame—and now you cannot help it—you must submit to have this unpleasant taxation on your comfort. I think with Mr. Parke that it is libellous; but, as Medwin is not the actual speaker, a jury would not give much damages. Perhaps, if Colburn would suppress it on the next edition, that it may not go down to posterity, that would be the best thing; and if he were told that Parke thought it libellous, he would most likely consent to do so. I am not disposed to advise you to bring an action upon it. The whole book tends to undo much of the prestige with which Lord Byron’s character had been artificially surrounded, and that perhaps will be some satisfaction to you. It was idly said, and still more idly believed, that his death would ruin the Greek cause. I was astonished at the assertion, and thought that, if true, the Greeks ought to fail, and, lo! they have been doing still better ever since.

Yours most truly, Sharon Turner .

I think a neat vindication of yourself from Lord Byron’s correspondence would be a fair and an admirable and an acceptable thing.

Mr. Murray, acting on the advice offered by Mr. Turner in his postscript, prepared a short pamphlet, which he circulated widely, containing seriatim Mr. Medwin’s statements of what he alleged Lord Byron to have said, contrasted with extracts from Lord Byron’s own letters, which Murray printed side by side in double columns. In every case Mr. Medwin’s statements were flatly contradicted by Lord Byron’s own words; and the pamphlet, though in a small compass, was considered one of the most effective replies which have ever been made to an accusation of the kind. One proof of this is that Mr. Medwin never attempted any repetition or vindication of his charges.*

Shortly after the burning of the Memoirs, Mr. Moore began to meditate writing a Life of Lord Byron; “the

* The Pamphlet on “Conversations of Lord Byron, as related by Thomas Medwin, Esq., compared with a portion of his Lordship’s correspondence,” is printed at the end of Mr. Murray’s octavo edition of Lord Byron’s works.

Longmans looking earnestly and anxiously to it as the great source of my means of repaying them their money.”* Mr. Moore could not as yet, however, proceed with the Life, as the most important letters of Lord Byron were those written to Mr. Murray, which were in his exclusive possession. Lord John Russell also was against his writing the Life of Byron.

“If you write,” he wrote to Moore, “write poetry, or, if you can find a good subject, write prose; but do not undertake to write the life of another reprobate [referring to Moore’s ‘Life of Sheridan.’] In short, do anything but write the life of Lord Byron.”†

Yet Moore grievously wanted money, and this opportunity presented itself to him with irresistible force as a means of adding to his resources. At length he became reconciled to Mr. Murray through the intercession of Mr. Hobhouse. Moore informed the Longmans of the reconciliation, and, in a liberal and considerate manner, they said to him, “Do not let us stand in the way of any arrangements you may make; it is our wish to see you free from debt, and it would be only in this one work that we should be separated.” It was in this way that Mr. Moore undertook to write for Mr. Murray the Life of Lord Byron. Mr. Murray agreed to repay Moore the 2000 guineas he had given for the burned Memoirs and £2000 extra for editing the letters and writing the Life, and Moore in his diary says that he considered this offer perfectly liberal. Nothing, he adds, could be more frank, gentleman-like, and satisfactory than the manner in which this affair had been settled on all sides.

* Moore’s Memoirs, &c., iv. 253. † Ibid. v. 51.

CHAPTER XVIII. BLACKWOOD AND MURRAY—SCOTT’S NOVELS.

The account of Mr. Murray’s dealings with Lord Byron has carried us considerably beyond the date at which we left the history of his general business transactions, and compels us to go back to the year 1814, when, as is related in a previous chapter, he had associated himself with William Blackwood as his Edinburgh agent.

There was much in this alliance which augured well for the prospects of both parties. Blackwood was young, active, and shrewd, and well aware of the advantages which connection with Murray offered to him; he was, moreover, a man of no little literary ability, and a very good letter-writer, as will be seen from the specimens given below. On the other hand, the literary society of Edinburgh was then at the height of its fame, and it was essential to Murray, who could not afford the time to pay many visits to the North, to have a worthy and energetic representative of his interests, qualified to tell him what was passing there, and to carry on communications with the leading men. The alliance between Murray and Blackwood was close, and matters of no little interest passed between them during the existence of the connection.

When Blackwood removed his publishing premises from South Bridge Street to Princes Street, in the new town, his office became a sort of literary lounge, and was frequented by Mackenzie (the Man of Feeling), Walter Scott, William Erskine, John Wilson, Lockhart, James Hogg, and a host of rising literary men. They looked in to see what new books were coming out, and to hear the literary gossip from the great Metropolis, of which Murray supplied Blackwood with information. Blackwood, on his part, kept Murray advised as to the new works by the author of ‘Waverley.’

At the beginning of January 1815 Blackwood wrote to Murray that he had seen Ballantyne, and found a copy of ‘Guy Mannering’ lying on his table.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray.

“He would not allow me to look at it, but he read me a few pages. The painting is admirable and quite graphic—Scottish to the life. From this specimen, and what Ballantyne told me about it, it will be a wonderful performance, and greatly superior to ‘Waverley,’ both in interest and effect.”

Blackwood had also seen and read the ‘Lord of the Isles,’ avowedly by Scott, but he was grievously disappointed with it.

“I regret the loss of ‘Guy Mannering,’” he added, “much more than this splendid two guinea quarto. If Walter Scott be the author of the novel, he stands far higher in my opinion in this line than in his former walk. Ballantyne made great professions of his regret that we were not the publishers. Whether he is sincere or not, time will prove; but he has great expectations of more from the same hand, and says it will not be his fault if they do not take the proper direction. He is to have the whole of the MS. on Tuesday, when we will have our second and, I hope, final sitting. I need not tell you to keep all this most strictly to yourself, as there would be the devil to pay if Constable knew that I had seen or heard a line of it. Yesterday I wrote a letter of thanks to Ballantyne for the delight I had received, and expressed my feelings in the best way I could with regard to this beautiful production. I did not of course appear in it at all as the Bookseller, but merely as the Amateur. I know he will have shown my letter to the author, and though humble the offering, as it will be the first, it may perhaps be of some use to the Bookseller.”

He again refers to ‘Guy Mannering,’ the first two volumes of which he had now finished, and was even more delighted with it than before. Who could be the author? He doubted whether Walter Scott could be the man, after his production of the ‘Lord of the Isles.’

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. Feb. 15th, 1815.

“Some circumstances have occurred which strengthen my suspicion with regard to William Erskine having a hand in it; but still it is only a suspicion. There is much greater invention, and far more feeling, than I have ever seen Walter Scott display in any of his works. You will be surprised when I tell you that it has been whispered that the Ballantynes have some hand in it themselves. . . . When you have seen the book, I am confident you will agree with me that there is no property of the kind that it would be more desirable to possess.”

In October Scott published his poem, the ‘Field of Waterloo,’ and its appearance convinced Blackwood that Scott was not the author of ‘Guy Mannering.’

“I am pretty certain,” he wrote (1st January, 1816), “that the ‘Antiquary’ is not gone to press, as I believe with you there was not a line of it written (if there is yet) when it was first announced. From every investigation I can make, I am still of opinion that Scott is not the author. Who can he be? Among others, Greenfield was mentioned to me the other day, but this is highly improbable. . . . I dare say you are well rid of Leigh Hunt; and I really pity you when I think of the difficulty you must often have in managing with authors, and particularly with the friends of authors whom you wish to oblige.”

When Murray was about to publish Byron’s ‘Siege of Corinth’ and ‘Parisina,’ he promised to send the early sheets to Blackwood, who proposed to hold a dinner in honour of the occasion, to which Scott, Erskine, and James Ballantyne were to be invited. Scott had a particular engagement with The Macleod, and, unfortunately, could not accept the invitation for the day named; but, to secure his attendance, the dinner was put off for a week, and then he made his appearance with Erskine and Ballantyne. The poems were read, to the immense delight of the audience. After the dinner, Blackwood wrote:—

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. Feb. 9th, 1816.

“I saw Ballantyne to-day. He says Mr. Scott is quite enthusiastic with regard to the Poems [‘Siege of Corinth’ and ‘Parisina’], and considers Monday’s meeting one of the highest treats and the greatest favours ever done him. . . He assured me that Mr. Scott would take an interest in me, and matters would take that turn with you and me which I had so long been wishing to bring about. Constable, Ballantyne told me in confidence, had been doing everything he could to tease and torment Mr. Scott. So all goes on well. Independent of the delight of listening to Lord Byron’s poetry, it was one of the great objects I had in being so anxious for your sending me the Poems, that I might have an opportunity of drawing closer, as it were, to Mr. Scott, and at the same time show him the confidence you had in me and the friendship you showed me. All this acts for our mutual interest.”

Feb. 11th, 1816.

“The announcement of Byron’s Poems has created a great buzz here. It has also got over the whole town that Mr. Scott had dined with me, and read them, and was in raptures with them. I did not mean to have said anything about this, but Mr. S. and Ballantyne talked about it, and it spread abroad like wildfire. I should have liked very much to have seen Constable when he first heard the intelligence.”

Mr. Blackwood was at this time straining every nerve to consolidate his business, and to form such connections as should conduce not only to the commercial prosperity, but to the literary credit of his firm. In this he was but following in the footsteps of Murray, to whom he wrote:—“In your connections with literary men, when I consider the books you have published and are to publish, you have the happiness of making it a liberal profession, and not a mere business of the pence. This I consider one of the greatest privileges we have in our business.”

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. February 23rd, 1816.

“It flatters me not a little that your views of our business agree so exactly with my own. Indeed, I knew this well enough before. You have it in your power fully to realize your conceptions: here I must be content to creep on; but limited as my sphere for some time must be, I will always be able, I hope, to keep up the character and respect which I consider is due to our profession when liberally conducted. Every one will regret that they did not push on this improvement in literature at the periods most favourable for its advancement, but I don’t think you have much reason to blame yourself.

“Your anxiety about your son’s improvement is most natural, and I anxiously hope he will prove worthy of all your cares. There is one thing, however, which in England you have to contend with. You cannot give a young man the proper education, nor the proper associates who are likely to be useful to him in after life, without sending him to one of your great schools. There—though he may become learned, and acquire the manners of a gentleman—the danger is, that his mind may not be early accustomed to the regular labour and routine of steady and active business.”

At length Mr. Blackwood found an opening into the higher class of publications. He, like Murray, was anxious to have a share in the business of publishing the works of Walter Scott—especially the novels teeming from the press by “The Author of ‘Waverley.’” Although Constable and the Ballantynes were necessarily admitted to the knowledge of their authorship, to the world at large they were anonymous, and the author still remained unknown. Mr. Murray had, indeed, pointed out to Mr. Canning that ‘Waverley’ was by Walter Scott; but Scott himself trailed so many red herrings across the path, that publishers as well as the public were thrown off the scent, and both Blackwood and Murray continued to be at fault with respect to the authorship of the ‘Waverley Novels.’

In February 1816 Ballantyne assured Blackwood that in a very few weeks he would have something very important to propose. On the 12th of April following, Blackwood addressed the following letter to Murray, “most strictly confidential;” and it contained important proposals:—

Mr. W. Blackwood to John Murray.

My Dear Murray,

Some time ago I wrote to you that James Ballantyne had dined with me, and from what then passed I expected that I would soon have something very important to communicate. He has now fully explained himself to me, with liberty to inform you of anything he has communicated. This, however, he entreats of us to keep most strictly to ourselves, trusting to our honour that we will not breathe a syllable of it to the dearest friends we have.

He began by telling me that he thought he had it now in his power to show me how sensible he was of the services I had done him, and how anxious he was to accomplish that union of interests which I had so long been endeavouring to bring about. Till now he had only made professions; now he would act. He said that he was empowered to offer me, along with you, a work of fiction in four volumes, such as Waverley, &c.; that he had read a considerable part of it; and, knowing the plan of the whole, he could answer for its being a production of the very first class; but that he was not at liberty to mention its title, nor was he at liberty to give the author’s name. I naturally asked him, was it by the author of ‘Waverley’? He said it was to have no reference to any other work whatever, and every one would be at liberty to form their own conjectures as to the author. He only requested that, whatever we might suppose from anything that might occur afterwards, we should keep strictly to ourselves that we were to be the publishers. The terms he was empowered by the author to offer for it were—

1. The author to receive one-half of the profits of each edition; these profits to be ascertained by deducting the paper and printing from the proceeds of the book sold at sale price; the publishers to be at the whole of the expense of advertising. 2. The property of the book to be the publishers’, who were to print such editions as they chose. 3. The only condition upon which the author would agree to these terms is, that the publisher should take £600 of John Ballantyne’s stock, selected from the list annexed, deducting 25 per cent, from the affixed sale prices. 4. If these terms are agreed to, the stock to the above amount to be immediately delivered, and a bill granted at twelve months. 5. That in the course of six or eight weeks, J. B. expected to be able to put into my hands the first two volumes printed, and that if on perusal we did not like the bargain, we should be at liberty to give it up. This he considered to be most unlikely; but if it should be the case, he would bind himself to repay or redeliver the bill on the books being returned. 6. That the edition, consisting of 2000 copies, should be printed and ready for delivery by the 1st of October next.

I have thus stated to you as nearly as I can the substance of what passed. I tried in various ways to learn something with regard to the author; but he was quite impenetrable. My own impression now is, that it must be Walter Scott, for no one else would think of burdening us with such trash as John B.’s wretched stock. This is such a burden, that I am puzzled not a little. I endeavoured every way I could to get him to propose other terms, but he told me they could not be departed from in a single part; and the other works had been taken on the same conditions, and he knew they would be greedily accepted again in the same quarter. Consider the matter seriously, and write to me as soon as you can. After giving it my consideration, and making some calculations, I confess I feel inclined to hazard the speculation; but still I feel doubtful until I hear what you think of it. Do not let my opinion, which may be erroneous, influence you, but judge for yourself. From the very strong terms in which Jas. B. spoke of the work, I am sanguine enough to expect it will equal if not surpass any of the others. I would not lay so much stress upon what he says if I were not assured that his great interest, as well as Mr. Scott’s, is to stand in the very best way both with you and me. They are anxious to get out of the clutches of Constable, and Ballantyne is sensible of the favour I have done and may still do him by giving so much employment, besides what he may expect from you. From Constable he can expect nothing. I had almost forgotten to mention that he assured me in the most solemn manner that we had got the first offer, and he ardently hoped we would accept of it. If, however, we did not, he trusted to our honour that we would say nothing of it; that the author of this work would likely write more; and should we not take this, we might have it in our power afterwards to do something with him, provided we acted with delicacy in the transaction, as he had no doubt we would do. I hope you will be able to write to me soon, and as fully as you can. If I have time to-morrow, or I should rather say this day, as it is now near one o’clock, I will write you about other matters; and if I have no letter from you, will perhaps give you another scolding.

Yours most truly, W. Blackwood.

A long correspondence took place between Blackwood and Murray on Ballantyne’s proposal. Blackwood was inclined to accept, notwithstanding the odd nature of the proposal, in the firm belief that “the heart’s desire” of Ballantyne was to get rid of Constable. He sent Murray a list of Ballantyne’s stock, from which the necessary value of books was to be selected. It appeared, however, that there was one point on which Blackwood had been mistaken, and that was, that the copyright of the new novel was not to be absolutely conveyed, and that all that Ballantyne meant, or had authority to offer, was an edition, limited to six thousand copies, of the proposed work. Although Murray considered it “a blind bargain,” he was disposed to accept it, as it might lead to something better. Blackwood accordingly communicated to Ballantyne that he and Murray accepted his offer.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. April 27th, 1816.

“Everything is settled, and on Tuesday Ballantyne is to give a letter specifying the whole terms of the transaction. He could not do it sooner, he said, as he had to consult the author. This, I think, makes it clear that it is Walter Scott, who is at Abbotsford just now. What surprised me a good deal was, James Ballantyne told me that his brother John had gone out there with Constable, and Godwin (author of ‘Caleb Williams’), whom Scott was anxious to see. They are really a strange set of people. . . . I am not over fond of all these mysteries, but they are a mysterious set of personages, and we must manage with them in the best way that we can.”

A letter followed from James Ballantyne to Murray (1st May, 1816), congratulating him upon concluding the bargain through Blackwood, and saying:—

“I have taken the liberty of drawing upon you at twelve months for £300 for your share. . . . It will be a singularly great accommodation if you can return the bill in course of post.”

Although Ballantyne had promised that the first edition of the proposed work should be ready by the 1st of October, 1816, Blackwood found that in June the printing of the work had not yet commenced. Ballantyne said he had not yet got any part of the manuscript from the author, but that he would press him again on the subject. The controversy still continued as to the authorship of the Waverley Novels. “For these six months past,” wrote Blackwood (6th June, 1816), “there have been various rumours with regard to Greenfield being the author of these Novels, but I never paid much attention to it; the thing appeared to me so very improbable. . . . But from what I have heard lately, and from what you state, I now begin to think that Greenfield may probably be the author.” On the other hand, Mr. Mackenzie called upon Blackwood, and informed him that “he was now quite convinced that Thomas Scott, Walter’s brother in Canada, writes all the novels.” The secret, however, was kept for many years longer.

Blackwood became quite provoked at the delay in proceeding with the proposed work.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. June 21st, 1816.

“I begin to fear that S. B. and Cy. are a nest of ——. There is neither faith nor truth in them. In my last letter I mentioned to you that there was not the smallest appearance of the work being yet begun, and there is as little still. James Ballantyne shifts this off his own shoulders by saying that he cannot help it. Now, my own belief is that at the time he made such solemn promises to me that the first volume would be in my hands in a month, he had not the smallest expectation of this being the case; but he knew that he would not have got our bills, which he absolutely wanted, without holding this out. It is now seven weeks since the bills were granted, and it is five weeks since I gave him the list of books which were to be delivered. I have applied to him again and again for them, and on Tuesday last his man at length called on me to say that John Ballantyne and Co. could not deliver fifty sets of ‘Kerr’s Voyages’—that they had only such quantities of particular odd volumes of which he showed me a list.”

Blackwood called upon Ballantyne, but he could not see him, and instead of returning Blackwood’s visit, he sent a note of excuse. Next time they met was at Hollingworth’s Hotel, after which Ballantyne sent Blackwood a letter “begging for a loan of £50 till next week, but not a word of business in it.” Next time they met was at the same hotel, when the two dined with Robert Miller.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray.

“After dinner I walked home with J. B. Perhaps from the wine he had drunk, he was very communicative, and gave me a great deal of very curious and interesting private history. Would you believe it, that about six weeks ago—at the very time our transaction was going on—these worthies, Scott, Ballantyne & Co., concluded a transaction with Constable for 10,000 copies of this said ‘History of Scotland’ [which had been promised to Blackwood and Murray] in 4 vols., and actually received bills for the profits expected to be realized from this large number! Yet, when I put James Ballantyne in mind on Tuesday of what he had formally proposed by desire of Mr. Scott, and assured us we were positively to get the work, and asked him if there was any truth in the rumour I had heard, and even that you had heard, about Mr. Scott being about to publish a ‘History of Scotland’ with his name, and further asked him if Mr. Scott was now ready to make any arrangements with us about it (for it never occurred to me that he could make arrangements with any one else), he solemnly assured me that he knew nothing about it! Now, after this, what confidence can we have in anything that this man will say or profess! I confess I am sadly mortified at my own credulousness. John I always considered as no better than a swindler, but James I put some trust and confidence in. You judged more accurately, for you always said that ‘he was a damned cunning fellow!’ Well, there is every appearance of your being right; but his cunning (as it never does) will not profit him. Within these three years I have given him nearly £1400 for printing, and in return have only received empty professions, made, to be sure, in the most dramatic manner. Trite as the saying is, honesty is always the best policy; and if we live a little longer, we shall see what will be the end of all their cunning, never-ending labyrinths of plots and schemes. Constableis the proper person for them; set a thief to catch a thief: Jonathan Wild will be fully a match for any of the heroes of the ‘Beggar’s Opera.’ My blood boils when I think of them, and still more when I think of my allowing myself so long to keep my eyes shut to what I ought to have seen long ago. But the only apology I make to myself is, that one does not wish to think so ill of human nature. There is an old Scotch proverb, ‘He has need o’ a lang spoon that sups wi’ the De’il,’ and since we are engaged, let us try if we can partake of the broth without scalding ourselves. I still hope that we may; and however much my feelings revolt at having any connection in future with them, yet I shall endeavour to the best of my power to repress my bile, and to turn their own tricks against themselves. One in business must submit to many things, and swallow many a bitter pill, when such a man as Walter Scott is the object in view. You will see, by this day’s Edinburgh papers, that the copartnery of John Ballantyne & Co. is formally dissolved. Miller told me that, before James Ballantyne could get his wife’s friends to assent to the marriage, Walter Scott was obliged to grant bonds and securities, taking upon himself all the engagements of John Ballantyne & Co., as well as of James Ballantyne & Co.;* so that, if there was any difficulty on their part, he bound himself to fulfil the whole. When we consider the large sums of money Walter Scott has got for his works, the greater part of which has been thrown into

* Lockhart says, in his ‘Life of Scott,’ that “on Feb., 1816, when James Ballantyne married, it is clearly proved, by letters in his handwriting, that he owed to Scott more than £3000 of personal debt.”

the hands of the Ballantynes, and likewise the excellent printing business J. B. has had for so many years, it is quite incomprehensible what has become of all the money. Miller says, ‘It is just a jaw hole which swallows up all,’ and from what he has heard he does not believe Walter Scott is worth anything.”

Murray was nevertheless willing to go on until the terms of his bargain with Ballantyne were fulfilled, and wrote to Blackwood that he was “resolved to swallow the pill, bitter though it was,” but he expressed his surprise that “Mr. Scott should have allowed his property to be squandered as it has been by these people.”

Blackwood, however, was in great anxiety about the transaction, fearing the result of the engagement which he and Murray had entered into.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. July 2nd, 1816.

“This morning I got up between five and six, but instead of sitting down to write to you, as I had intended, I mounted my pony and took a long ride to collect my thoughts. Sitting, walking, or riding is all the same. I feel as much puzzled as ever, and undetermined whether or not to cut the Gordian knot. Except my wife, there is not a friend whom I dare advise with. I have not once ventured to mention the business at all to my brother, on account of the cursed mysteries and injunctions of secrecy connected with it. I know he would blame me for ever engaging in it, for he has a very small opinion of the Ballantynes. I cannot therefore be benefited by his advice. Mrs. Blackwood, though she always disliked my having any connection with the Ballantynes, rather thinks we should wait a few weeks longer, till we see what is produced. I believe, after all, this is the safest course to pursue. I would beg of you, however, to think maturely upon the affair, taking into account Mr. Scott’s usefulness to the Review. Take a day or two to consider the matter fully, and then give me your best advice. . . . As to Constable or his triumphs, as he will consider them, I perfectly agree with you that they are not to be coveted by us, and that they should not give us a moment’s thought. Thank God, we shall never desire to compass any of our ends by underhand practices.”

Mr. Croker paid a visit to Edinburgh about this time, and was the bearer of a letter of introduction from Murray to Blackwood, who assisted in doing the honours and showing him over the city. Blackwood called upon Walter Scott to give him the news of Croker’s arrival. “He received me,” he writes to Murray, “with all his usual kindness, but never a syllable about anything else.” Professor Jameson was to show the distinguished visitor over his Museum, Dr. Brewster was to exhibit the Observatory and its instruments; and Blackwood was to show him everything else that was worthy to be seen—the Castle, Holyrood, and the Old Town. After spending a delightful morning with Mr. Croker, Blackwood writes:—

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. July 12th, 1816.

“I think I have never been so much gratified with any one. His quickness of mind, intelligence, and activity are surprising; and what gives a complete charm to the whole is the simplicity and perfect gentlemanly tone of his manners. . . . He went to the Castle, Holyrood House, and Nelson’s Monument before breakfast. He is quite delighted with Edinburgh. Lord Dalhousie and Governor Houston breakfasted with us. . . . We have since been in the Court hearing a trial. Mr. Scott and Mr. Erskine then went with us to the Advocates’ Library and the High Church. To-morrow morning we start for Arthur’s Seat. . . . Many are the favours you have done me, my dear friend, but this introduction is beyond them all.”

Meanwhile correspondence with Ballantyne about the work of fiction—the name of which was still unknown—was still proceeding. Ballantyne said that the author “promised to put the first volume in his hands by the end of August, and that the whole would be ready for publication by Christmas.” Blackwood thought this reply was “humbug, as formerly.” Nevertheless, he was obliged to wait. At last he got the first sight of the manuscript.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray. August 23rd, 1816. Midnight.

“My dear Murray ,—I have this moment finished the reading of 192 pages of our book—for ours it must be,—and I cannot go to bed without telling you what is the strong and most favourable impression it has made upon me. If the remainder be at all equal—which it cannot fail to be, from the genius displayed in what is now before me—we have been most fortunate indeed. The title is, Tales of my Landlord; collected and reported by Jedediah Cleishbotham, Parish Clerk and Schoolmaster of Gandercleugh.”

Mr. Blackwood then proceeds to give an account of the Introduction, the commencement of “The Black Dwarf,” the first of the tales, and the general nature of the story, to the end of the fourth chapter. His letter is of great length, and extends to nine quarto pages. He concludes:—

“There cannot be a doubt as to the splendid merit of the work. It would never have done to have hesitated and higgled about seeing more volumes. In the note which accompanied the sheets, Ballantyne says, ‘each volume contains a Tale,’ so there will be four in all.* The next relates to the period of the Covenanters. I have now neither doubts nor fears with regard to the whole being good, and I anxiously hope that you will have as little. I am so happy at the fortunate termination of all my pains and anxieties, that I cannot be in bad humour with you for not writing me two lines in answer to my last letters. I hope I shall hear from you to-morrow; but I entreat of you to write me in course of post, as I wish to hear from you before I leave this [for London], which I intend to do on this day se’nnight by the smack.”

* This, the original intention, was departed from.

In a later letter Blackwood writes to Murray that he has received a communication from James Ballantyne:—

Mr. James Ballantyne to Mr. Wm. Blackwood.

August 28th, 1816.

I have had a letter from a worthy friend, Jedediah Cleishbotham, who says, ‘I return the letter of Mr. Blackwood, and am glad he is pleased; but he will like the second volume better than the first, and so will you, I think. But I want some Covenanting books sadly, to ascertain and identify my facts and dates by, before committing myself to the inevitable operation of the proofs. The following I especially want’ [here Mr. Cleishbotham enumerates Hodson’s ‘History of the Sufferings of the Kirk,’ and a number of others, all of which I had it fortunately in my power to send to Ballantyne, along with some others which I know he would like to see]. ‘Without the means of the most accurate confirmation of what I have written, with these volumes, Jedediah hath too much regard unto verity to print or publish. The sooner they can be supplied, the sooner you will receive the copy. I have some thoughts of writing a Glossary, in the name and style of said learned Jedediah. I am, if I may say so, confident of the success of this work!’ This is no bad heartening—although it must be confessed that authors are not the best judges of their own composition. I do not hope to like the Covenanting tale better than the ‘Black Dwarf.’

Your, &c., J. B.

At length the principal part of the manuscript of the novel was in the press, and, as both the author and the printer were in sore straits for money, they became importunate on Blackwood and Murray for payment on account. They had taken Ballantyne’s “wretched stock” of books, as Blackwood styled them, and Lockhart, in his ‘Life of Scott,’ infers that Murray had consented to anticipate the period of his payments. At all events, he finds in a letter of Scott’s, written in August, these words to John Ballantyne:— “Dear John,—I have the pleasure to enclose Murray’s acceptances. I earnestly recommend you to push, realising as much as you can.

“Consider weel, gude mon, We hae but borrowed gear, The horse that I ride on, It is John Murray’s mear.”

But this accommodation was not enough for the uses of the author and the printer. On the 12th October, 1816, Blackwood encloses to Murray two letters from Ballantyne—in one of them asking for the loan of £100 for a week; and in the other requesting, on the part of the author of the ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ that Blackwood and Murray should each give him a bill at three months, on account, for £250, to be renewed so as to give the full term of credit. Both publishers answered to the same effect—declining to advance the loan of £100, and refusing to go on upon the system of bills; but stating that so soon as the book was ready for delivery, they would at once be ready to settle for the full amount.

Scott was at this time sorely pressed for ready money. He was buying one piece of land after another, usually at exorbitant prices, and having already increased the estate of Abbotsford from 150 to nearly 1000 acres, he was in communication with Mr. Edward Blore as to the erection of a dwelling adjacent to the cottage, at a point facing the Tweed. This house grew and expanded, until it became the spacious mansion of Abbotsford. The Ballantynes also were ravenous for more money; but they could get nothing from Blackwood and Murray before the promised work was finished.

At last the book was completed, printed, and published on the 1st of December, 1816; but without the magical words, “by the Author of ‘Waverley,’” on the title-page. All doubts as to the work being by the author of ‘Waverley,’ says Lockhart, had worn themselves out before the lapse of a week.

John Murray to Mr. Wm. Blackwood. December 13th, 1816.

“Having now heard every one’s opinion about our ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ I feel competent to assure you that it is universally in their favour. There is only ‘Meg Merrilies’ in their way. It is even, I think, superior to the other three novels. You may go on printing as many and as fast as you can; for we certainly need not stop until we come to the end of our, unfortunately, limited 6000. . . . My copies are more than gone, and if you have any to spare pray send them up instantly.”

On the following day Mr. Murray wrote to Mr. Scott:—

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

Dec. 14th, 1816. Dear Sir,

Although I dare not address you as the author of certain Tales—which, however, must be written either by Walter Scott or the devil—yet nothing can restrain me from thinking that it is to your influence with the author of them that I am indebted for the essential honour of being one of their publishers; and I must intrude upon you to offer my most hearty thanks, not divided but doubled, alike for my worldly gain therein, and for the great acquisition of professional reputation which their publication has already procured me. As to delight, I believe I could, under any oath that could be proposed, swear that I never experienced such great and unmixed pleasure in all my life as the reading of this exquisite work has afforded me; and if you witnessed the wet eyes and grinning cheeks with which, as the author’s chamberlain, I receive the unanimous and vehement praise of them from every one who has read them, or heard the curses of those whose needs my scanty supply would not satisfy, you might judge of the sincerity with which I now entreat you to assure the author of the most complete success. After this, I could throw all the other books which I have in the press into the Thames, for no one will either read them or buy. Lord Holland said, when I asked his opinion: “Opinion? we did not one of us go to bed all night, and nothing slept but my gout.” Frere, Hallam, and Boswell; Lord Glenbervie came to me with tears in his eyes. “It is a cordial,” he said, “which has saved Lady Glenbervie’s life.” Heber, who found it on his table on his arrival from a journey, had no rest till he had read it. He has only this moment left me, and he, with many others, agrees that it surpasses all the other novels. Wm. Lamb also; Gifford never read anything like it, he says; and his estimate of it absolutely increases at each recollection of it. Barrow with great difficulty was forced to read it; and he said yesterday, “Very good, to be sure, but what powerful writing is thrown away.” Heber says there are only two men in the world, Walter Scott and Lord Byron. Between you, you have given existence to a third.

Ever your faithful servant, John Murray .

This letter did not effectually “draw the badger.” Scott replied in the following humorous but Jesuitical epistle:—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

December 18th, 1816. My dear Sir,

I give you hearty joy of the success of the Tales, although I do not claim that paternal interest in them which my friends do me the credit to assign to me. I assure you I have never read a volume of them till they were printed, and can only join with the rest of the world in applauding the true and striking portraits which they present of old Scottish manners.

I do not expect implicit reliance to be placed on my disavowal, because I know very well that he who is disposed not to own a work must necessarily deny it, and that otherwise his secret would be at the mercy of all who chose to ask the question, since silence in such a case must always pass for consent, or rather assent. But I have a mode of convincing you that I am perfectly serious in my denial—pretty similar to that by which Solomon distinguished the fictitious from the real mother—and that is by reviewing the work, which I take to be an operation equal to that of quartering the child. . . Kind compliments to Heber, whom I expected at Abbotsford this summer; also to Mr. Croker and all your four o’clock visitors. I am just going to Abbotsford, to make a small addition to my premises there. I have now about seven hundred acres, thanks to the booksellers and the discerning public.

Yours truly, Walter Scott .

The happy chance of securing a review of the Tales by the author of ‘Waverley’ himself exceeded Murray’s most sanguine expectations, and filled him with joy. He suggested that the reviewer, instead of sending an article on the Gypsies, as he proposed, should introduce whatever he had to say about that picturesque race in his review of the Tales, by way of comment on the character of Meg Merrilies. The review was written, and appeared in No. 32 of the Quarterly, in January 1817, by which time the novel had already gone to a third edition. It is curious now to look back upon the author reviewing his own work. He adopted Murray’s view, and besides going over the history of ‘Waverley,’ and the characters introduced in that novel, he introduced a disquisition about Meg Merrilies and the Gypsies, as set forth in his novel of ‘Guy Mannering.’ He then proceeded to review the ‘Black Dwarf and ‘Old Mortality,’ but with the utmost skill avoided praising them, and rather endeavoured to put his friends off the scent by undervaluing them, and finding fault. The ‘Black Dwarf,’ for example, was full of “violent events which are so common in romance, and of such rare occurrence in real life.” Indeed, he wrote, “the narrative is unusually artificial; neither hero nor heroine excites interest of any sort, being just that sort of pattern people whom nobody cares a farthing about.”

“The other story,” he adds, “is of much deeper interest.” He describes the person who gave the title to the novel—Robert Paterson, of the parish of Closeburn, in Dumfriesshire—and introduces a good deal of historical knowledge, but takes exception to many of the circumstances mentioned in the story, at the same time quoting some of the best passages about Cuddie Headrigg and his mother. In respect to the influence of Claverhouse and General Dalzell, the reviewer states that “the author has cruelly falsified history,” and relates the actual circumstances in reference to these generals. “We know little,” he says, “that the author can say for himself to excuse these sophistications, and, therefore, may charitably suggest that he was writing a romance, and not a history.” In conclusion, the reviewer observed, “We intended here to conclude this long article, when a strong report reached us of certain trans-Atlantic confessions, which, if genuine (though of this we know nothing), assign a different author to these volumes than the party suspected by our Scottish correspondents. Yet a critic may be excused seizing upon the nearest suspicious person, on the principle happily expressed by Claverhouse in a letter to the Earl of Linlithgow. He had been, it seems, in search of a gifted weaver who used to hold forth at conventicles. “I sent to seek the webster (weaver); they brought in his brother for him; though he maybe cannot preach like his brother, I doubt not but he is as well-principled as he, wherefore I thought it would be no great fault to give him the trouble to go to the jail with the rest.”

“This brother!” It is probable that Scott sought to get rid of the imputation of being the author of the ‘Waverley Novels’ by insinuating that they were the work of his brother. At all events both Blackwood and Murray, with many others, were, in spite of themselves, thrown off the scent, first by his writing a review of his own work and then by alleging, from “certain trans-Atlantic confessions,” that they were the work of his brother. In January 1817, Mr. Murray wrote to Mr. Blackwood:—

John Murray to Mr. Wm. Blackwood.

“I can assure you, but in the greatest confidence, that I have discovered the author of all these Novels to be Thomas Scott, Walter Scott’s brother. He is now in Canada. I have no doubt but that Mr. Walter Scott did a great deal to the first ‘Waverley Novel,’ because of his anxiety to save his brother, and his doubt about the success of the work. This accounts for the many stories about it. Many persons had previously heard from Mr. Scott, but you may rely on the certainty of what I have told you. The whole country is starving for want of a complete supply of the ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ respecting the interest and merit of which there continues to be but one sentiment.”

A few weeks later Blackwood wrote to Murray:—

Mr. W. Blackwood to John Murray. January 22nd, 1817.

“It is an odd story here, that Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Scott are the authors of all these Novels. I, however, still think, as Mr. Croker said to me in one of his letters, that if they were not by Mr. Walter Scott, the only alternative is to give them to the devil, as by one or the other they must be written.”

On the other hand, Bernard Barton wrote to Mr. Murray, and said that he had “heard that James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, was the author of ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ and that he had had intimation from himself to that effect,” by no means an improbable story considering Hogg’s vanity. Lady Mackintosh also wrote to Mr. Murray:—“Did you hear who this new author of ‘Waverley’ and ‘Guy Mannering’ is? Mrs. Thomas Scott, as Mr. Thomas Scott assured Lord Selkirk (who had been in Canada), and his lordship, like Lord Monboddo, believes it.” Murray again wrote to Blackwood (15th Feb., 1817):—“What is your theory as to the author of ‘Harold the Dauntless’? I will believe, till within an inch of my life, that the author of ‘Tales of my Landlord’ is Thomas Scott.”

Thus matters remained until a few years later, when George IV. was on his memorable visit to Edinburgh. Walter Scott was one of the heroes of the occasion, and was the selected cicerone to the King. One day George IV., in the sudden and abrupt manner which is peculiar to our Royal Family, asked Scott point-blank: “By the way, Scott, are you the author of ‘Waverley’?” Scott as abruptly answered: “No, Sire!” Having made this answer (said Mr. Thomas Mitchell, who communicated the information to Mr. Murray some years later), “it is supposed that he considered it a matter of honour to keep the secret during the present King’s reign. If the least personal allusion is made to the subject in Sir Walter’s presence, Matthews says that his head gently drops upon his breast, and that is a signal for the person to desist.”

With respect to the first series of the ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ so soon as the 6000 copies had been disposed of which the author, through Ballantyne, had covenanted as the maximum number to be published by Murray and Blackwood, the work reverted to Constable, and was published uniformly with the other works by the author of ‘Waverley.’

CHAPTER XIX. BLACKWOOD’S ‘EDINBURGH MAGAZINE’—TERMINATION OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN MURRAY AND BLACKWOOD.

We have already seen that Mr. Murray had some correspondence with Thomas Campbell in 1806 respecting the establishment of a monthly magazine; such an undertaking had long been a favourite scheme of his, and he had mentioned the subject to many friends at home as well as abroad. He intended his monthly journal to be lighter and better adapted to the interests of the general reader than the elaborate essays in the Quarterly. He was, however, so much immersed in the publication of new and interesting works, which required his close and continuous attention, that the project was for a time postponed. But when Mr. Blackwood started his magazine, Murray informed his correspondents by printed circular that by obtaining an interest in that publication, and by throwing into it the materials which had been placed at his disposal, every purpose of his intended periodical might be advantageously accomplished. He concluded his circular by stating that he was “happy to say that he had succeeded in effecting what had been recommended to him, and that he was now joint proprietor and publisher of Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine.”

Mr. Murray, however, did not become identified with that journal at its commencement, but at a later period he wrote to Blackwood (10th January, 1817): “If you succeed with a magazine, which you ought not to be rash in attempting, you will effect what I have been trying to do for these five years past.” Blackwood duly thought over the matter, and eventually determined to proceed with his venture. The first number appeared in April 1817, under the name of the “Edinburgh Monthly Magazine, printed for William Blackwood, No. 17, Princes Street.” Party politics were not mentioned in the original prospectus, nor was any sign of them to be observed in the early numbers of the magazine, which was at first a sort of antiquarian repertory, with notices of periodical publications, and a register of foreign and domestic affairs.

Blackwood was himself a contributor to the first number. He wrote to Murray:

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. April 14th, 1817.

“It will amuse you when I tell you that I am a contributor myself; and for the first time in my life I appear in print. At the time I received the ‘Stories from the History of England’ [by Croker] I was so much struck with them that I wrote a sketch of the book for the Mercury, but never got it inserted. On showing it to Pringle, he insisted on putting it in the Magazine; so here you have it. You will not be likely to find me in such a scrape again.”

A fortnight later he again wrote:—

“I feel much more confidence in the magazine from your good opinion of it. I have staked myself upon it, and if it does fail it will not be from want of an anxious and ardent struggle in the cause. As far as consistent with your views, I am sure you will help me; and much you have in your power.”

There was nothing very striking in the early numbers of the Magazine, and it does not appear to have obtained a considerable circulation. The first editors were Thomas Pringle, who—in conjunction with a friend—was the author of a poem entitled ‘The Institute,’ and James Cleghorn, best known as a contributor to the Farmers’ Magazine. Constable, who was himself the proprietor of the Scots Magazine as well as of the Farmers’ Magazine, and desired to keep the monopoly of the Scottish monthly periodicals in his own hands, was greatly opposed to the new competitor. At all events, he contrived to draw away from Blackwood, Pringle and Cleghorn, and to start a new series of the Scots Magazine under the title of the Edinburgh Magazine. Blackwood thereupon changed the name of his periodical to that by which it has since been so well known. He undertook the editing himself, but soon obtained many able and indefatigable helpers.

There were then two young advocates walking the Parliament House in search of briefs; but the briefs never came. Yet they had plenty of “go” in them, though the public were late in finding it out. These were John Wilson (Christopher North) and John Gibson Lockhart (afterwards editor of the Quarterly). Both were West-countrymen—Wilson, the son of a wealthy Paisley manufacturer, and Lockhart, the son of the minister of Cambusnethan, in Lanarkshire—and both had received the best of educations, Wilson, the robust Christian, having carried off the Newdigate prize at Oxford, and Lockhart, having gained the Snell foundation at Glasgow, was sent to Balliol, and took a first class in classics in 1813. These, with Dr. Maginn—under the sobriquet of ‘Morgan O’Dogherty,’—Hogg—the Ettrick Shepherd,—De Quincey—the Opium-eater,—Thomas Mitchell, and others, were the principal writers in Blackwood.

No. 7, the first of the new series, created an unprece-dented stir in Edinburgh. It came out on the 1st of October, 1817, and sold very rapidly, but after 10,000 had been struck off it was suppressed, and could be had neither for love nor money. The cause of this sudden attraction was an article headed ‘Translation from an Ancient Chaldee Manuscript,’ purporting to be an extract from some newly discovered historical document, every paragraph of which contained a special hit at some particular person well known in Edinburgh society. There was very little ill-nature in it; at least, nothing like the amount which it excited in those who were, or imagined themselves to be, caricatured in it. Constable, the “Crafty,” and Pringle and Cleghorn, editors of the Edinburgh Magazine, as well as Jeffrey, editor of the Edinburgh Review, came in for their share of burlesque description.

Among the persons delineated in the article were the publisher of Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, whose name “was as it had been, the colour of Ebony:” indeed the name of Old Ebony long clung to the journal. The principal writers of the article were themselves included in the caricature. Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, was described as “the great wild boar from the forest of Lebanon, and he roused up his spirit, and I saw him whetting his dreadful tusks for the battle.” Wilson was “the beautiful leopard,” and Lockhart “the scorpion,”—names which were afterwards hurled back at them with interest. Walter Scott was described as “the great magician who dwelleth in the old fastness, hard by the river Jordan, which is by the Border.” Mackenzie, Jameson, Leslie, Brewster, Tytler, Alison, M’Crie, Playfair, Lord Murray, the Duncans—in fact, all the leading men of Edinburgh were hit off in the same fashion.

Mrs. Garden, in her ‘Memorials of James Hogg,’ says that “there is no doubt that Hogg wrote the first draft; indeed, part of the original is still in the possession of the family. . . . Some of the more irreverent passages were not his, or were at all events largely added to by others before publication.”* In a recent number of Blackwood it is said that—

“Hogg’s name is nearly associated with the Chaldee Manuscript. Of course he claimed credit for having written the skit, and undoubtedly he originated the idea. The rough draft came from his pen, and we cannot speak with certainty as to how it was subsequently manipulated. But there is every reason to believe that Wilson and Lockhart, probably assisted by Sir William Hamilton, went to work upon it, and so altered it that Hogg’s original offspring was changed out of all knowledge.”†

The whole article was probably intended as a harmless joke; and the persons indicated, had they been wise, might have joined in the laugh or treated the matter with indifference. On the contrary, however, they felt profoundly indignant, and some of them commenced actions in the Court of Session for the injuries done to their reputation.

The same number of Blackwood which contained the ‘Translation from an Ancient Chaldee Manuscript,’ contained two articles, one probably by Wilson, on Coleridge’s ‘Biographia Litteraria,’ the other, signed “Z,” by Lockhart, being the first of a series on ‘The Cockney School of Poetry.’ They were both clever, but abusive, and exceedingly personal in their allusions.

Murray expostulated with Blackwood on the personality of the articles. He feared lest they should be damaging to the permanent success of the journal. Blackwood replied

* Mrs. Garden’s ‘Memorials of James Hogg,’ p. 107.

† Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, Sept. 1882, pp. 368-9.

in a long letter, saying that the journal was prospering, and that it was only Constable and his myrmidons who were opposed to it, chiefly because of its success.

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. April 28th, 1818.

“It is not my province to vindicate everything that has been published in the magazine; but this I will be bold to say, that there is nothing in it which is discreditable, while there may be things in it which I might have wished otherwise, but over which I had no control. The poetical notices in the twelfth number I know have been much blamed; but I think if any one will read them unprejudiced, he will say they are humorous, but not ill-natured, and that no man of sense, with the exception of Constable, had any reason to be offended with them. In the general impression with regard to the magazine, I refer you to Mr. Scott, who has been my steady friend and supporter in the whole conflict, or battle of the beasts. In a letter I had from him two days ago, he says, with regard to a person who is vastly angry, ‘this is just as it ought to be, for jades do not wince but when they are galled.’”

In August 1818, Murray paid £1000 for a half share in the magazine, and from this time he took a deep and active interest in its progress, advising Blackwood as to its management, and urging him to introduce more foreign literary news, as well as more scientific information. He did not like the idea of two editors, who seem to have taken the management into their own hands. In a letter to Blackwood he wrote:—

John Murray to Mr. Blackwood. Sept. 1818.

“Sir R. Phillips replied truly to D’Israeli, who boasted of the talent we could muster, ‘I don’t care a farthing for talent.’ Nothing is equal to the excellence of most of our papers abstractedly. The prominent feature of the magazine should be literary and scientific news, and most of all the latter, for which your editors appear to have little estimation, and they seem not to be the least aware that this is ten times more interesting to the public than any other class of literature at present. I cannot sit down to write studied letters, and I only write in confidence to you, just as I should converse. I do not either want to dictate to your editors. . . . You have unfortunately too much of the Lake School, for which no interest is felt here. Your editors want tact as to the public interest; and by having two, in fact you have no editor: they are more intent on their own writings than in collecting materials from others, and in abridging, altering, adding to, and improving the contributions that are sent to them. . . . One great advantage of the editor of the Q. R. (Gifford) is that he does not write; but what he does do is equal in value to writing half of each number. And never in any instance was an article copied before it was sent to the printer. We can confide in each other. Give us foreign literature, particularly German; and let them create news in all departments. . . . As I before said, you and I are not editors, but publishers. We know the first effect, though we may not be able so easily to gauge the cause of its not being proportionate to our expectations.”

Subsequent numbers of Blackwood contained other reviews of ‘The Cockney School of Poetry:’ Leigh Hunt, “the King of the Cockneys,” was attacked in May, and in August it was the poet Keats who came under the critic’s lash, four months after Croker’s famous review of ‘Endymion’ in the Quarterly.*

* It was said that Keats was killed by this brief notice, of four pages, in the Quarterly; and Byron, in his ‘Don Juan,’ gave credit to this statement:— “Poor Keats, who was killed off by one critique, Just as he really promised something great, . . . ’Tis strange, the mind, that very fiery particle, Should let itself be snuffed out by an article.” Leigh Hunt, one of Keats’ warmest friends, when in Italy, told Lord

The same number of Blackwood contained a short article about Hazlitt—elsewhere styled “pimpled Hazlitt.” It was very short, and entitled “Hazlitt cross-questioned.” Hazlitt considered the article full of abuse, and commenced an action for libel against the proprietors of the magazine. Upon this Blackwood sent Hazlitt’s threatening letter to Murray, with his remarks:—

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. Sept. 22nd, 1818.

“I suppose this fellow merely means to make a little bluster, and try if he can pick up a little money. There is nothing whatever actionable in the paper. . . . The article on Hazlitt, which will commence next number, will be a most powerful one, and this business will not deprive it of any of its edge.”

Sept. 25th, 1818.

“What are people saying about that fellow Hazlitt attempting to prosecute? There was a rascally paragraph in the Times of Friday last mentioning the prosecution, and saying the magazine was a work filled with private slander. My friends laugh at the idea of his prosecution.”

Mr. Murray, however, became increasingly dissatisfied with this state of things; he never sympathised with the slashing criticisms of Blackwood, and strongly disapproved of the personalities, an opinion which was shared by most of his literary friends. At the same time his name was on

Byron (as he relates in his Autobiography) the real state of the case, proving to him that the supposition of Keats’ death being the result of the review was a mistake, and therefore, if printed, would be a misrepresentation. But the stroke of wit was not to be given up. Either Mr. Gifford, or “the poet-priest Milman,” has generally, but erroneously, been blamed for being the author of the review in the Quarterly, which, as is now well known, was written by Mr Croker.

the title-page of the magazine, and he was jointly responsible with Blackwood for the articles which appeared there. On the 25th of September he wrote:—

John Murray to Mr. Blackwood.

“I have been employed in collecting generally and individually opinions respecting the magazine. At present I will just say that everyone agrees in the talent of the work, but they object to its personality; and what I must particularly recommend is, that our contributors should insert nothing that will in any way deprive us of the countenance of our best friends.”

Sept. 28th, 1818.

“I have delayed writing for no other reason than that I was desirous of gathering from all quarters the opinion respecting our magazine, and you will believe how great my own regret is at finding the clamour against its personality almost universal. . . . You must naturally be aware that all eyes are turned to me—who am so accessible from situation and the open house I keep, when compared to the Row, where no one goes except upon positive business. I feel seriously and sensibly the operation of opinions at which I only guessed before. I have undergone most severe remonstrance from my best and most important friends, who press upon me my character with the public, in which they are naturally interested, and in some degree implicated; that even if I were right, it is not what I think, but what the public will think of me for stepping out of a line of conduct which hitherto has gained respect from all parties. Now, what applies to me in this respect, from the accident of my being rather more in the public eye than either you or your friends have yet been, applies also, as I think you will admit, no less to yourselves; and you must be aware that what would depreciate opinion respecting me must naturally operate in a similar degree upon you. My hands are withered by it. I cannot offer the work without encountering the dread of reproachful refusal; and as to obtaining contributions from men of character, I might as soon ask them to let me stab them in their backs.”

The letter extends to eleven quarto pages in length, and is all to the same effect. Mr. Murray deprecates the personality of the articles in the magazine, and entreats that they be kept out. If not, he begs that Blackwood will omit his name from the title-page of the work. “A great friend of yours,” he says, “asks if you are mad. I do wonder, I assure you, how you could have borne reproaches for which no compensation could atone. I would not, I could not, endure it for another number if you would send me 5000 guineas.”

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. Sept. 29th, 1818.

“I perfectly agree with you in all you say about personality in expression. I have always been doing as much in this way as I can, and to-day I communicated to my friends what you say on the subject. They are to do what they can to obviate any objections on this score; but we may lay our account for the ‘hue and cry’ being always attempted to be raised by those who are attacked, however justly.”

And again:—

Oct. 2nd, 1818. My Dear Murray,

What would I not have given to have been with you yesterday? One half-hour’s conversation would have been such a relief to us both, as I know I could at once have taken a load off your mind, by assuring you that everything will go on well, as in future there will be nothing in the magazine which will give any proper ground for outcry being raised against it. I can easily conceive the state of mind you must have been in, and I feel quite happy that you have written me so fully and freely. It is needless, however, for you to distress yourself about what is past, for really when you examine the matter again calmly and coolly, there is not such ground for alarm as you fear, and friends have conjured up; and as to the future, I now feel perfectly at ease. Your letter has pleased and satisfied our friends. Mr. W[ilson] has called just now, and I have the happiness of enclosing you a most admirable letter* which they have written this morning, and which, in fact, leaves me nothing almost to say. . . . For God’s sake, keep your mind easy; there is nothing to fear. My rule always was in all my difficulties for the last twelve months, to put the best face upon everything, and even with regard to articles which I have done my utmost to keep out or get modified, I never once admitted they were wrong. If any one perceives that we are uneasy or doubtful, then they pour in their shot like hail.

A long correspondence took place during the month of October between Murray and Blackwood: the former continuing to declaim against the personality of the articles; the latter averring that there was nothing of the sort in the magazine. If Blackwood would only keep out these personal attacks, Murray would take care to send him articles by Mr. Frere, Mr. Barrow, and others, which would enhance the popularity and respectability of the publication. It was not from persons who had been attacked, or their friends, that Murray had received expostulations; but “from our own friends and hearty well-wishers.” “I bargain only,” he said, “for NO personality.”

John Murray to Mr. Blackwood.

“I will do anything if you will only be good, and keep the peace. . . . . . . . . . . . I enclose six excellent letters upon Literature, by Horace Walpole. They have never been published. I have got D’Israeli to let me have them, in consequence of his impression respecting this number, and I have reason to believe that I can induce him to be a regular correspondent in a very useful way; . . . but even he contributes upon my pledge that personality is at an end. . . . Sir James Mackintosh has received many civilities from me, which he would willingly return, and it has always been my intention to ask him to contribute to the magazine; but I cannot do so at this time, in conse-

* A copy of this letter has not been retained.

quence of the attacks on the Edinburgh Review; and if the proposed article on Brougham is inserted, my hopes are at an end. . . . I enclose a beautiful translation of a very celebrated Italian poem, by Mr. Milman; but look over it, and tell me if it is liked; also the enclosed by Southey, whom I will try also. . . . It is possible that I may induce Mr. Frere to continue ‘Whistlecraft’ in the magazine; and Lord Byron may send something, as well as many persons of the first rank. But this is utterly hopeless if either of the above causes (personality, &c) interferes; for I would not submit to the pain of a repulse. . . . Mr. B[arrow] has just been here again, and says that this is a redeeming number, and that they are very clever fellows who write in it. So that you see I can bring up your lee-way if you will let me. Best compliments to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Lockhart . . . Vale.—J. M.”

Troubles, however, were coming.

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. Oct. 6th, 1818.

“I have this instant received Hazlitt’s summons for his action in the Court of Session, in which he claims £2000 for damages! . . . The matter sits very lightly upon me and our friends. . . . Some time ago I retained Mr. Cranstoun.”

Oct. 10th, 1818.

“It will save a great deal of trouble and botheration if Hazlitt gives up his action, and I think there is every probability of his doing so. He never would have thought of it had he not been urged on by Constable, who must be at the whole expense if it proceeds. Our friends are to speak to Mr. Scott, to tell C—— strongly that he must give up this system of urging on actions, else it will be worse for him.”

The circulation of the magazine had now become very considerable: 1500 copies of the October number having been sent to London.

Another subject of annoyance was about to make its appearance.

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. Oct. 17th, 1818.

“That stupid fellow, Pillans’ brother, announces in today’s papers: ‘To be published on Monday, “Hypocrisy Unveiled and Calumny Detected,” in a review of Blackwood’s Magazine.’ I have not yet been able to hear a syllable about it. I wonder if it can be done by John Murray [afterwards Lord Murray]. We shall soon be able to ferret it out. I shall be very anxious till I see it.”

It turned out that the anonymous pamphlet, entitled ‘Hypocrisy Unveiled,’ raked up the whole of the joke contained in the ‘Translation from an Ancient Chaldee Manuscript,’ published a year before, which was supposed to be forgotten. The number containing it had, as we have already seen, been suppressed, because of the offence it had given to many persons of celebrity, while the general tone of bitterness and personality had been subsequently modified, if not abandoned. Murray assured Blackwood that his number for October 1818 was one of the best he had ever read, and he desired him to “offer to his friends his very best thanks and congratulations upon the production of so admirable a number.” “With this number,” he said, “you have given me a fulcrum upon which I will move heaven and earth to get subscribers and contributors.” Indeed, several of the contributions in this surpassingly excellent number had been sent to the Edinburgh publisher through the instrumentality of Murray himself.

‘Hypocrisy Unveiled’ was a lampoon of a scurrilous and commonplace character, in which the leading contributors to and the publishers of the magazine were violently attacked. Both Murray and Blackwood, who were abused openly, by name, resolved to take no notice of it; but Lockhart and Wilson, who were mentioned under the thin disguise of “the Scorpion” and “the Leopard,” were so nettled by the remarks on themselves, that they, in October 1818, both sent challenges to the anonymous author, through the publisher of the pamphlet. This most injudicious step only increased their discomfiture, as the unknown writer not only refused to proclaim his identity, but published and circulated the challenges, together with a further attack on Lockhart and Wilson.

This foolish disclosure caused bitter vexation to Murray, who wrote:—

John Murray to Mr. Blackwood.

Oct. 27th, 1818. My Dear Blackwood,

I really can recollect no parallel to the palpable absurdity of your two friends. If they had planned the most complete triumph to their adversaries, nothing could have been so successfully effective. They have actually given up their names, as the authors of the offences charged upon them, by implication only, in the pamphlet. How they could possibly conceive that the writer of the pamphlet would be such an idiot as to quit his stronghold of concealment, and allow his head to be chopped off by exposure, I am at a loss to conceive. Their only course was to have affected, and indeed to have felt, the most perfect indifference, and to have laughed at the rage which dictated so much scurrility; slyly watching to discover the author, whom, without appearing to know as such, they should have annoyed in every possible way. Their exposure now is complete, and they must be prepared for attacks themselves in every shape. Their adversaries are acting with the most judicious effect in sending their letters to every person they know. I received one by post. The means thus put into the hands of Hunt, Hazlitt, &c., are enormous, and they will now turn the tables upon them.

I declare to God that had I known what I had so incautiously engaged in, I would not have undertaken what I have done, or have suffered what I have in my feelings and character—which no man had hitherto the slightest cause for assailing—I would not have done so for any sum. But, being in, I am determined to go through with you, and if our friends will only act with redoubled discretion, we may get the better of this check, and yet gain a victory. They should by a masterly effort pluck the thing out of their minds: it is done; but how in the name of wonder they could act with such an utter disregard of all and almost daily experience, I am too much vexed and disappointed to conceive. The only course to be taken now is to redouble every effort for the improvement of the magazine. Let us take public estimation by assault; by the irresistible effect of talent employed on subjects that are interesting; and above all, I say, to collect information on passing events. Our editors are totally mistaken in thinking that this consists in laborious essays. These are very good as accessories, but the flesh and blood and bones is information. That will make the public eager to get us at the end of the month; and, by the way, the tone of every article should be gentlemanly; . . . and, I repeat, if you wish to be universally read, the magazine should be conciliatory, so as to make it open for all mankind to read and to contribute. For such a mammoth of a work every month you will find must consume all the means that you can collect from all quarters.

What you must suffer from this must be inconceivably annoying; but, seeing how they feel under the first touch of personality, you will be the better able to conceive the sensations of others, and resolve never to insert anything of the kind again. Even the article on Thomas Moore was unnecessary and unkind, and, as Mr. C[roker] told me, cannot fail of giving him pain and making yourselves more enemies. In the name of God, why do you seem to think it indispensable that each number must give pain to some one or other. Why not think of giving pleasure to all? This should be the real object of a magazine. Pray let me hear from you instantly as to the effect of this injudicious matter, and tell me if they propose to take any further step. The answer to W[ilson] and L[ockhart] is obviously written by talent much superior to that displayed in the pamphlet, and it is written with triumph, not with irritation. I am so vexed at this business that I cannot write about any other matters until to-morrow.

Yours ever, J. M.

Many more letters passed between the proprietors of the magazine on the subject. Blackwood agreed with Murray as to his view of the question. “Wilson,” he said, “felt sore and enraged, for he could not endure the least breath of anything ungentlemanly.” Lockhart laughed at the whole business. Blackwood desired to dismiss it from his mind, to treat the matter with silence, and to do all that was possible to increase the popularity of the magazine. The next number, he said, would be excellent and unexceptionable; and it proved to be so. “Out of evil,” he wrote (30th Oct.), “cometh good; and I have no doubt but that this vile business will both animate their exertions and make them much more cautious for the future. . . Another number or two will put us in smooth water. Much as we have been vexed already, we will yet be amply repaid for all our troubles.”

The difficulty, however, was not yet over. While the principal editors of the Chaldee Manuscript had thus revealed themselves to the author of ‘Hypocrisy Unveiled,’ the London publisher of Blackwood was, in November 1818, assailed by a biting pamphlet, entitled ‘A Letter to Mr. John Murray, of Albemarle Street, occasioned by his having undertaken the publication, in London, of Blackwood’s Magazine .’ “The curse of his respectability,” he was told, had brought the letter upon him. “Your name stands among the very highest in the department of Literature which has fallen to your lot: the eminent persons who have confided in you, and the works you have given to the world, have conduced to your establishment in the public favour; while your liberality, your impartiality, and your private motives, bear testimony to the justice of your claims to that honourable distinction.” It was alleged that his elevation put him “above the reach of mere speculators in literature,” and yet he was the avowed publisher of a magazine in which men of the highest character had been assailed and slandered. After some more similar remarks, in the course of which it was alleged that Mr. Murray had revived the power of the magazine—although then sinking beneath contempt—by placing his name upon its cover, he was requested, “in the name of an insulted public, to renounce this infamous magazine.” “I conjure you,” said the author, “by your reputation, by your honour, by your sense of justice: I implore you by your regard for the good opinion of men, to renounce it: I appeal to your own bosom whether you are not ashamed of your connection with it. Renounce it, renounce it!”

Many more appeals of the same kind reached Mr. Murray’s ear. Moore, in his Diary (4th Nov., 1818), writes: “Received two most civil and anxious letters from the great ‘Bibliopola Tryphon’ Murray, expressing his regret at the article in Blackwood, and his resolution to give up all concern in it if it contained any more such personalities.”*

Hazlitt’s action against the proprietors of Blackwood’s Magazine was proceeded with, but Murray received a letter from Edinburgh in November 1818, saying that nothing had been done to defend the case. He was not unnaturally annoyed at this, and replied:—

John Murray to Mr. Blackwood.

November 27th, 1818. My Dear Blackwood,

Your letter has occupied my whole morning. Nothing can be worse than your inattention to so important a matter. Even at this late period you omit to send me any

* ‘Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence of Thomas Moore,’ ii., 210. By Lord John Russell.

one document on which counsel can form an opinion. What is the accusation? What can you prove? How you could let it fall in this manner at your door I cannot conceive; but I have done the best I can. . . I have had a long consultation with Mr. Turner, and I have sent after, and searched myself after, the works which the fellow has written. Mr. Turner will write to-night. To neglect such a thing as this when three-fourths of the talent of the Bar are in hostility to you, and when any jury will be prejudiced against you, is very reprehensible. The magazine is very far superior to the former one, and is liked by everyone who has seen it; but at my leisure I shall write more particularly respecting it. In the meantime I am collecting some excellent articles, which shall be sent on Monday.

Most truly yours, John Murray .

I hope they will arrive in time, or it is ruin to us as to effect.

Three days later Murray wrote to Blackwood that he was determined to stand by the magazine, notwithstanding the aspersions made against him; but solely on condition that the writers in the magazine would abstain from all personality. “You see,” he wrote (30th November), “that I am giving essential assistance to it, and that ought to be the best pledge of my intentions.” He still insisted that the magazine should give more information as to what was going on in the world.

John Murray to Mr. Wm. Blackwood. December 7th, 1818.

“At any rate, I hope the next number will be free of politics and of personality. If, for instance, you are going to attack Mr. Brougham, you must strike out my name. Mackintosh is offended, and thus a very material source is closed to me—at least, until your literary character is established. Mr. Turner is, I presume, in regular negotiation with Mr. Patmore (Hazlitt’s friend), and in active correspondence with you. Southey, in a letter received this day, has the following passage: ‘It was said some time ago in the Times that Hazlitt had meditated an action against Blackwood’s Magazine. I do not believe it. He would not run the risk of having me subpoenaed upon the trial.’”

At last the Hazlitt action was settled. Blackwood, after acknowledging the receipt of a “glorious article” for the magazine on the North-West Expedition, from Murray, proceeds:—

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. Dec. 16th, 1818.

“I have had two letters from Mr. Patmore, informing me that Mr. Hazlitt was to drop the prosecution. His agent has since applied to mine offering to do this, if the expenses and a small sum for some charity were paid. My agent told him he would certainly advise any client of his to get out of court, but that he would never advise me to pay anything to be made a talk of, as a sum for a charity would be. He would advise me, he said, to pay the expenses, and a trifle to Hazlitt himself privately. Hazlitt’s agent agreed to this.”*

The correspondence between Murray and Blackwood continued, and the London sale of the magazine was augmented by Murray’s energy to 2000 copies early in 1819, but negotiations did not go on quite smoothly between the proprietors. Murray still complained of the personalities, and of the way in which the magazine was edited. “Indeed,” he wrote (9th January, 1819), “as editors, they are not worth sixpence.” He also objected to the “echo of the Edinburgh Review’s abuse of Sharon Turner. It was sufficient to give pain to me, and to my most valued friend. There was another ungentlemanly and

* I have not been able to discover what sum, if any, was paid to Hazlitt privately.

uncalled-for thrust at Thomas Moore. That just makes so many more enemies, unnecessarily; and you not only deprive me of the communications of my friends, but you positively provoke them to go over to your adversary.”

Nevertheless, it appeared to be impossible to exercise any control over the editors, who inserted or rejected whatever they pleased. Murray objected to ‘Peter’s Letters to his Kinsfolk’ (by Lockhart), which was a renewal in a petty way of the personalities which had been so often reprobated.

John Murray to Mr. Blackwood. Feb. 20th, 1819.

“I declare I cannot conceive how you can still suffer such articles to appear, knowing the ill-blood which they occasion. I assure you it is degrading, and I should certainly feel ashamed of publishing it. I fear you will think me very troublesome in my correspondence about the magazine, but as my character is at stake, you must not be surprised at my anxiety to lose no more of it on this account. I am very far from wishing to trouble you, and if you wish to be quit of me, you have only to pay me off, and I will retire; but such things I cannot publish.”

Murray had no alternative left but to expostulate, and if his expostulations were unheeded, to retire from the magazine. The last course was that which he eventually decided to adopt, and the end of the partnership in Blackwood’s Magazine, which had long been anticipated, at length arrived. Murray’s name appeared for the last time on No. 22, for January 1819; the following number bore no London publisher’s name; but on the number for March the names of T. Cadell and W. Davies were advertised as the London agents for the magazine. The editors, being now free from the expostulations of Mr. Murray, proceeded with their reviews on the ‘Cockney School of Poetry.’ Indeed, No. 22, the last number published by Murray, contained a review of the ‘Revolt of Islam,’ wherein Shelley was declared to be also one of the Cockney School, and “devoting his mind to the same pernicious purposes which have recoiled in vengeance upon so many of his contemporaries.” “Hunt and Keats,” it was said, “and some others of the school, are indeed men of considerable cleverness, but as poets they are worthy of sheer and instant contempt.” Shelley, on the other hand, was praised for his poem, which was “impressed everywhere with the more noble and majestic footsteps of his genius.”

On the 17th of December, 1819, £1000 were remitted to Mr. Murray in payment of the sum which he had originally advanced to purchase his share, and his connection with Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine finally ceased. He thereupon transferred his agency for Scotland to Messrs. Oliver and Boyd, with whose firm it has ever since remained. The friendly correspondence between Murray and Blackwood nevertheless continued, as they were jointly interested in several works of importance.

In the course of the following year, “Christopher North” made the following statement in Blackwood’s Magazine in “An Hour’s Tête-à-tête with the Public”—

“The Chaldee Manuscript, which appeared in our seventh number, gave us both a lift and a shove. Nothing else was talked of for a long while; and after 10,000 copies had been sold, it became a very great rarity, quite a desideratum. . . . The sale of the Quarterly is about 14,000, of the Edinburgh upwards of 7000. . . . It is not our intention, at present, to suffer our sale to go beyond 17,000. . . . Mr. Murray, under whose auspices our magnum opus issued for a few months from Albemarle Street, began to suspect that we might be eclipsing the Quarterly Review. No such eclipse had been foretold; and Mr. Murray, being no great astronomer, was at a loss to know whether, in the darkness that was but too visible, we were eclipsing the Quarterly, or the Quarterly eclipsing us. We accordingly took our pen, and erased his name from our title-page, and he was once more happy. Under our present publishers we carry everything before us in London.”

Mr. Murray took no notice of this statement, preferring, without any more words, to be quit of his bargain.

It need scarcely be added, that when Mr. Blackwood had got his critics and contributors well in hand—when his journal had passed its frisky and juvenile life of fun and frolic—when the personalities had ceased to appear in its columns, and it had reached the years of judgment and discretion—and especially when its principal editor, Mr. John Wilson (Christopher North), had been appointed to the distinguished position of Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh—the journal took that high rank in periodical literature which it has ever since maintained.

END OF VOL. I.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XX. WORKS PUBLISHED IN l8l7-18—CORRESPONDENCE, &C.—HOGG—SCOTT—MALCOLM.

Works published by Murray and Blackwood jointly—Byron and Scott—Ballantyne’s unsatisfactory proceedings—Scott’s books transferred to Constable—Hogg’s ‘Mador of the Moor’ and ‘Queen’s Wake’—Illness of Scott—Efforts to help the Ettrick Shepherd—Murray’s offers of assistance—Scott reviews the ‘Wake’—Hogg’s house at Eltrive—Gifford’s supposed prejudice—Scott and the Quarterly—‘Rob Roy’—The ‘Scottish Regalia’—‘The Heart of Midlothian’—Appeal to Scott for an article—‘Lord Orford’s Letters’—‘Beppo’—Ballantyne’s dealings—Scott’s review of ‘Childe Harold,’ Canto IV.—Hogg’s ‘Tales’—Murray’s visit to Abbotsford—His letter on the personalities in Blackwood’s Magazine—Young Walter Scott in London—Conclusion of Hogg’s correspondence—Mr. Thomas Mitchell—His early career—Letter to Murray about his translation of ‘Aristophanes’—His contributions to the Quarterly—Increase of Murray’s business—‘Whistlecraft’—Letter from Mr. Frere—‘Beppo’ attributed to W. S. Rose—Frere’s ‘Aristophanes’—Robert Owen—The American book trade—W. T. Wolfe Tone—Letter from Mr. Kirk—Captain Riley’s narrative—Letters from Sir J. Malcolm—Voyages and Travels—Letter from Mr. John Barrow—The Congo Expedition—Piracy of Tuckey’s Journal—Mrs. Hemans and her works—A would-be poet—Rev. F. Hodgson—Sharon Turner’s Poems—Murray’s letter—Mr. James Mill—Letters from M. de Sismondi and Mrs. Graham—A whale in the Tay—‘Rob Roy’—Anecdote of W. Scott and Sir J. Colquhoun. page 1

CHAPTER XXI. MR. SOUTHEY AND THE ‘QUARTERLY.’

Southey’s works and articles in Quarterly—Attack on his article on Parliamentary Reform—Applications for separate publications of Quarterly articles—Southey’s controversy with Brougham—His endeavour to get work on the Quarterly for De Quincey—Croker as a contributor—Mr. Russell’s article on Hazlitt—Gifford’s secrecy concerning the authorship of articles—Mr. Barrow’s work on the Quarterly—Origin of the Arctic Voyages—Barrow’s remonstrance with Murray for over-payment—Mr. Cohen’s (Sir F. Palgrave) articles—Sir Alexander Boswell—Southey’s praise of No. 36—Professor Monk’s article on ‘Brougham’s Education Committee’—Revised by Canning and Croker—Letter from Mr. W. B. Cook—Gifford’s opinion of Sheil’s ‘Evadne’—Miss O’Neil’s acting—Letter from Sheil—Murray’s presents to Gifford—Barrow’s review of Birkbeck’s ‘Notes on America’—Ugo Foscolo—The Government and the Quarterly—D’Israeli’s review of Spence’s anecdotes—Conflicting opinions—Cohen and Croker—Gifford’s ill-health—Coronation of George IV.—The Rev. G. R. Gleig—Croker assists Gifford—His advice concerning the management of the Quarterly—Mr. Gifford’s resignation imminent—Mr. J. T. Coleridge. page 39

CHAPTER XXII. HALLAM—BASIL HALL—CRABBE—HOPE—HORACE AND JAMES SMITH.

Mr. Hallam—Captain Basil Hall—Letters to Murray—Sir H. Ellis’s ‘Embassy to China’—Correspondence with Lady Abercorn about new books—Proposed Monthly Register—Mr. Croker’s condemnation of the scheme, and Mr. Thomas Murdoch’s—D’Israeli’s ‘Literary Character’—His opinion of ‘The Heart of Midlothian’—Description of Dropmore and Stoke—Invitations from Murray’s friends—Murray’s visit to Edinburgh—Letters from Mr. D’Israeli—Invitation to Farnham—Comments on Blackwood’s Magazine—Crabbe’s Works—Mr. Murray’s offer—Mr. Rogers’ negotiations——Mrs. Brunton’s ‘Emmeline’—Hope’s ‘Anastasius’—Letter from Mr. Hope—‘Rejected Addresses’—Colonel Macirone’s action against the Quarterly—Letters from Mr. Sharon Turner—Letter from Mr. Croker as to the Duke of Wellington’s evidence—The trial—Serjeant Copley’s defence—Murray’s entertainments—Mr. Everett—Mrs. Bray’s account of them. page 61

CHAPTER XXIII. MEMOIRS OF LADY HERVEY—HORACE WALPOLE—BELZONI—HILMAN—SOUTHEY—BELL—MRS. RUNDELL, ETC.

Lady Hervey’s Letters—Mr. Croker’s letter about the editing of them—Lord Waldegrave’s Memoirs—Horace Walpole’s Memoirs—Mr. Murray’s correspondence with Lord Holland—The Suffolk Papers, edited by Mr. Croker—Mrs. Delany’s Letters—Letter from Mr. Croker—Horace Walpole’s ‘Reminiscences,’ edited by Miss Berry—Tomline’s ‘Life of Pitt’—Other works published—Giovanni Belzoni—His early career and works—His sensitiveness—His death—Examples of his strength—Captain Parry’s first Voyage—Official delays—Murray’s appeal to the Admiralty—Works declined—Rev. H. H. Milman’s Works, ‘Fazio,’ ‘Samor,’ ‘The Fall of Jerusalem,’ ‘Martyr of Antioch,’ ‘Belshazzar’—Murray’s dealings with Milman—Benjamin Disraeli—Letters from Southey about his articles on Cromwell—The New Churches, &c.—‘The Book of the Church’—Warren Hastings, &c.—Guardian newspaper—Borrowers—The Carbonari—Mr. Eastlake—Mrs. Graham—Galignani’s pirated edition of Byron—Death of Mr. Murray’s second son—Books published—‘The Enraged Author’—Sir C. Bell—Miss Porden—Captain Franklin—Mrs. Rundell’s Cookery Book. page 85

CHAPTER XXIV. WASHINGTON IRVING—UGO FOSCOLO—LADY CAROLINE LAMB—‘HAJJI BABA’—MRS. MARKHAM’S HISTORIES—ALLAN CUNNINGHAM, ETC.

Washington Irving—His early dealings with Murray—‘Salmagundi’—‘History of New York’—He comes to England—His description of a dinner at Murray’s—‘The Sketch Book’—Published in England by Miller—Afterwards undertaken by Murray—Terms of purchase—Irving’s description of Gifford—‘The Lay of the Scottish Fiddle’—Irving’s ill-success in business—‘Bracebridge Hall’—‘Tales of a Traveller’—James Fenimore Cooper—Ugo Foscolo—His early career—First article in the Quarterly—Letter from Mr. T. Mitchell—Foscolo’s peculiarities—Digamma Cottage—Lady Dacre’s kindness—Extracts from his letters to Murray—His Lectures—Letter from Mr. W. S. Rose—Death of Foscolo—Lady C. Lamb—‘Glenarvon’—‘Penruddock’—‘Ada Reis’—Letter from the Hon. Wm. Lamb—Lord J. Russell—His proposed History of Europe—Mr. James Morier’s ‘Hajji Baba’—Letter of Mirza Abul Hassan—Sir J. Malcolm’s ‘Sketches of Persia’—Mrs. Graham’s Letters from Rio de Janeiro—Lord Cochrane—Captain Cochrane’s Travels—Mrs. Starke’s ‘Guide Books’—Crofton Croker’s ‘Fairy Legends’—Mrs. Markham’s ‘History of England’—Allan Cunningham. page 126

CHAPTER XXV. GIFFORD’S RETIREMENT FROM THE EDITORSHIP OF THE ‘QUARTERLY’—AND DEATH.

Gifford’s failing health—Difficulty of finding a successor—Barrow’s assistance—Review of ‘Memorable Days in America’—Gifford’s letter to Mr. Canning—His review of W. Irving’s ‘Tales of a Traveller’—Irregularity of the numbers—Southey’s views as to the Editorship—Letters from Dr. Ireland, and from Mr. Cohen, giving advice—Letter from Mr. Barrow announcing Gifford’s resignation—Gifford’s letter to Mr. Canning—Appointment of Mr. J. T. Coleridge—His correspondence with Murray—Murray’s announcement of the appointment to Gifford—Letters to Mr. Southey and from Mr. D’Israeli—Mr. Milman—Close of Mr. Gifford’s career—His correspondence with Murray—Mr. Gifford’s letter to Mr. Canning thanking him for assistance—Death of Mr. Moorcroft—Gifford’s last letters to Murray and Mr. Canning—His death, burial and character—Letter from Mr. R. Hay to the present Mr. Murray about Gifford. page 155

CHAPTER XXVI. THE ‘REPRESENTATIVE.’

Murray’s desire to start a new periodical—The Daily Sun—The Literary Gazette—The Constitution—The Guardian—The British Review—The Athenaum—Letter from Mr. Cohen—Benjamin Disraeli—Projected morning paper—Benjamin Disraeli’s early career and writings—Letters to Murray about ‘Aylmer Papillon’—Benjamin Disraeli’s increasing intimacy with Murray—Origin of the scheme to start a daily paper—South American speculation—Messrs. Powles—Agreement to start a daily paper—The Representative—Benjamin Disraeli’s journey to consult Sir W. Scott about the editorship—His letters to Murray—Visit to Chiefswood—Progress of the negociation—Mr. Lockhart’s reluctance to assume the editorship—Letter from Mr. I. D’Israeli to Murray—Mr. Lockhart’s first introduction to Murray—His letter about the editorship—Sir W. Scott’s letter to Murray—Editorship of Quarterly offered to Lockhart—Murray’s letter to Sir W. Scott—Mr. Lockhart accepts the editorship of the Quarterly—Disraeli’s activity in promoting the Representative—His letters to Murray—Premises taken—Arrangements for foreign correspondence—Letters to Mr. Maas and Mr. Bynner—Murray’s letter to Mr. Wm. Jerdan—Engagement of Mr. Watts and Mr. S. C. Hall—Mr. Disraeli ceases to take part in the undertaking—Publication of the Representative—Its failure—The Rev. E. Edwards—Effect of the strain on Murray’s health—Letters from friends—The financial crisis—Failure of Constable and Ballantyne—The end of the Representative—Coolness between Murray and Mr. D’Israeli. page 180

CHAPTER XXVII. MR. LOCKHART AS EDITOR OF THE ‘QUARTERLY’—HALLAM—WORDSWORTH—BASIL HALL—DEATH OF CONSTABLE.

The Editorship of the Quarterly—Mr. Coleridge’s resignation—Mr. Lockhart appointed—His early works—Carping critics—Letter from Sir W. Scott, giving his opinion of Lockhart’s abilities and character—Letters from Mr. Lockhart—Mr. Croker’s attitude—Lockhart’s views concerning his own position—Lord Byron’s works—Mr. Southey’s opinion of the change of Editorship—Mr. Coleridge’s letter—Dr. Gooch’s article on the Plague—Lockhart’s first Number—His difficulties—Mr. Croker’s criticism—The Rev. E. D. Griffin—-His account of a party in Albemarle Street—Works of opposing views published by Murray—Mr. Southey’s ‘Book of the Church’—Charles Butler—Blanco White—Controversies, &c.—Mr. Butler’s and Mr. Southey’s methods of composition—Southey’s and Napier’s ‘Histories of the War in Spain’—Voyages and Travels, Arctic and Tropical—Parry—Denham—Payments to authors—Letter from Mr. Hallam about his ‘Constitutional History’—D. G. Rossetti—Poetry—Mr. W. S. Rose—His ‘Orlando Furioso’ and ‘Anecdotes of Monkeys’—Mr. Milman’s ‘Anne Boleyn’—Thomas Hood—Wordsworth’s Works—Letter from Mr. Lockhart—Origin of ‘Constable’s Miscellany’—Renewed intercourse between Murray and Constable—Letter from Capt. Basil Hall about the ‘Miscellany’—Mr. Constable, wishes to obtain Southey’s ‘Life of Nelson’—Origin of the ‘Family Library.’ page 219

CHAPTER XXVIII. HEAD—DISRAELI—LOCKHART—WASHINGTON IRVING—SCOTT, DOWN TO HIS DEATH.

South American speculation—Captain Head, R.E.—His rapid rides across the Pampas—His return home and publication of his work —Results of his mission—Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Powles—Letter from Mr. B. Disraeli—Irving’s ‘Life of Columbus’—His agent, Col. Aspinwall—Letter of warning from Mr. Sharon Turner—Southey’s opinion—‘The Conquest of Granada’—Lockhart’s and Croker’s opinions—The financial result of their publication—Correspondence between Irving and Murray—‘Tales of the Alhambra’—Murray’s subsequent law suit with Bohn about the copyrights—Review of Hallam’s ‘Constitutional History’ in the Quarterly—Mr. Hallam’s remonstrance—Letter from Murray—Letter from Mr. Mitchell—Southey’s discontent—Sir W. Scott and Lockhart—Scott’s articles for the Quarterly—Sir H. Davy’s ‘Salmonia’—Anecdote of Lord Nelson—Mr. C. Lyell’s articles—Captain Head’s articles—The Quarterly and the Government—Catholic Emancipation—The Duke of Wellington—Murray’s offer to Scott for a History of Scotland—Sale of Sir W. Scott’s copyrights—Murray’s offer for ‘Tales of a Grandfather’—Scott’s reply—Scott’s closing years—Prof. Wilson and the ‘Naval History of Britain’—Murray’s resignation of his one-fourth share of ‘Marmion’—Scott’s last contributions to the Quarterly—His last journey and death—Mr. John Murray’s account of the Theatrical Fund Dinner. page 252

CHAPTER XXIX. NAPIER’S ‘PENINSULAR WAR’—CROKER’S ‘BOSWELL’—‘THE FAMILY LIBRARY’—THE LADIES OF LLANGOLLEN, ETC.

Napier’s ‘History of the Peninsular War’—Origin of the work.—Col. Napier’s correspondence with Murray—Publication of Vol. I.—Controversy aroused by it—Murray ceases to publish the work—His letter to the Morning Chronicle—The Duke of Wellington’s Despatches—Croker’s edition of ‘Boswell’s Johnson’—Correspondence with Croker, Lockhart, &c.—Publication of the book—Its value—Letter from Mrs. Shelley—Captain Franklin’s Second Expedition—Mr. Crofton Croker—Mr. Henry Taylor’s ‘Isaac Comnenus’—‘Philip van Artevelde’—Mrs. Callcott—Voyage of the Blonde—Dr. Paris’s ‘Philosophy in Sport’—Letter from Croker about Horace Walpole’s Letters—‘The Family Library’ and the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge—The progress of ‘The Family Library’—Letter from Mr. Sharon Turner—Milman’s ‘History of the Jews’—Controversy aroused by it—Letter from Mr. Sharon Turner—Letters from Mr. Milman—Opinion of the Jews—Head’s ‘Life of Bruce’—Barrow’s ‘Mutiny of the Bounty’—The Ladies of Llangollen. page 281

CHAPTER XXX. MOORE’S ‘LIFE OF BYRON.’

Murray purchases the remainder of Byron’s Poems—Leigh Hunt’s ‘Recollections’—Moore selected as the biographer of Byron—Collection of Letters and Papers—Lord Byron’s MSS.—Mrs. Shelley and her works—Fletcher—Agreement between Murray and Moore—‘Little May-Fly’—Death of Moore’s child—Kennedy’s ‘Conversations’—The Catholic Emancipation Act—Murray’s Portrait Gallery—Publication of the first Volume of Byron’s ‘Life’—Mrs. Shelley’s letter—Publication in America—Publication of the second volume.—Letters from Mrs. Somerville, Col. D’Aguilar, Croker, Gally Knight, Milman—Capt. Medwin’s Conversations—Pecuniary results of Lord Byron’s ‘Life’—Reviews of Moore’s works in the Quarterly—Moore on Editors—Complete Edition of ‘Byron’s Works’—Mrs. Shelley and Mr. Godwin—Thorwaldsen’s statue of Lord Byron—Refused at Westminster Abbey, but erected in Trinity College Library, Cambridge. page 305

CHAPTER XXXI. BENJAMIN DISRAELI—THOMAS CARLYLE—SIR FRANCIS HEAD.

Mr. Benjamin Disraeli—Journeys abroad—‘Vivian Grey’—Requests interview with Murray—Negociations about the ‘Psychological Romance’—It is published under the title of ‘Contarini Fleming’—Mr. Disraeli’s ‘Gallomania’—Correspondence with Murray—Letters from Baron de Haber—Thomas Carlyle and ’Sartor Resartus’—Publication offered and accepted—Finally declined—‘Sartor Resartus’ published—Captain Head’s Visit to Ireland—Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau—Assistant Commissioner of Poor Laws—Murray’s visit to Nassau—Meeting of the German Associations of Naturalists at Bonn—Major Head—Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada—Rebellion in Canada—Sir F. B. Head returns to England—Correspondence and Vindication—His articles in the Quarterly. page 332

CHAPTER XXXII. VARIOUS AUTHORS’ CORRESPONDENCE.

Deterioration of Poetry—Mr. G. P. R. James—Mrs. Austin—Professor John Leslie—State of Politics—Difficulties of the Quarterly—Letters from Lockhart and Croker—From Mr. Philip Pusey, M.P. —Mr. Croker’s retirement from official life—His contributions to the Quarterly—His review of ‘Keith on the Prophecies’—Relations of Mr. Croker with Mr. Lockhart—Death of Mrs. Lockhart—Mrs. Trollope—Anthony Trollope—John Douglas Cook—Crabbe’s Life and Posthumous Works—Letters from Dr. Paris and Samuel Warren—Southey elected as M.P.—His contributions to the Quarterly—His remuneration—His discontent—Extracts from his correspondence—He is offered a Baronetcy—Receives a pension—Mr. Charles Lyell—Mr. Roderick Murchison—Letter from Sir Alexander Burnes. page 374

CHAPTER XXXIII. LITERARY LADIES—FANNY KEMBLE (MRS. BUTLER)—MRS. SOMERVILLE—MRS. NORTON.

Fanny Kemble’s appearance as an authoress—Her ‘Francis the First’—Opinions of Mr. Milman and of Joanna Baillie—John Kemble’s Works—Fanny Kemble’s marriage—Tour in the United States—Her ‘Journal in America’—Opinions of Lady Dacre, and Sir F. Head—Returns to England—Mrs. Somerville—‘Mechanism of the Heavens’—Murray’s offer—Connection of the ‘Physical Sciences’—‘Physical Geography’—The Honourable Mrs. Norton—Her poems—The Undying One—The Murderous Drama—A Voice from the Factories—Her letters—Opinion of Don Juan—Verses on Mr. Murray—Review of her works in the Quarterly—Captain Ross’ Voyage—Lady Franklin—Scrope Davies and Sir R. Peel about Byron—Cavour—Murray’s Dinners—Theodore Hook and Lord Robertson—T. Moore—Murray’s illnesses—Dr. Robinson. page 396

CHAPTER XXXIV. SCROPE—HALLAM—MR. GLADSTONE—FOWELL BUXTON—LORD MAHON—SIR R. PEEL—CARLYLE, ETC.

Murray disposes of his novels and romances—Over-payments for works—Barrow’s Life of Howe and Anson—Croker’s return of excess-payment—Scrope’s ‘Deerstalking’—Allan Cunningham—Hallam—Milman—Mr. Gladstone’s ‘Church and State’ and ‘Church Principles’—T. F. Buxton’s ‘Slave Trade’—Lord Mahon—Letter from Mrs. Longman—Fellow’s ‘Asia Minor’—Captain Harris on ‘South Africa’—Kinnear’s ‘Petra’—Miss Rigby’s ‘Letters from the Baltic’—Lord Dudley’s Posthumous works—Letter to the Bishop of Llandaff—Elphinstone’s ‘History of India’—Havelock’s ‘Afghanistan’—Mrs. Jameson’s ‘Picture Galleries’ —Sir Robert Peel—Suggestion of a Guide round London—Printers’ errors—The Quarterly Review—Lockhart’s contributors—Ticknor’s interview—Lockhart’s ‘Spanish Ballads’—Lord Ashley—Thomas Carlyle’s proposed article—Lord Brougham—Lockhart and Sir J. Barrow—Letter from Mr. C. J. Latrobe. page 428

CHAPTER XXXV. MURRAY’S ‘HANDBOOKS.’

Origin of the Handbooks—Mrs. Starke’s Guides—Mr. John Murray’s account of his early travels when writing the Handbooks—Mr. John Murray’s letters—Venice—Padre Pasquale Aucher—Salzburg—The cholera in Austria—Munich—Discomforts of travelling—Spa—A curious cave—Angers—Fontcvrault—Chinon—Plessis les Tours—Spain after the Carlist War—Irun—A desolated country—St. Sebastian—Barreges—Cirque de Gavarnie—Ascent to the Breche de Roland—Development of the Series. page 459

CHAPTER XXXVI. GEORGE BORROW—RICHARD FORD—HORACE TWISS—JOHN STERLING—MR. GLADSTONE—DEATH OF SOUTHEY, ETC.

George Borrow—Gypsies and Bible in Spain—Richard Ford—Letters from Borrow—New works published—Twiss’s ‘Life of Eldon’—Colquhoun’s ‘Moor and the Loch’—Reconciliation of Mr. Colquhoun and Blackwood—Allan Cunningham’s ‘Memoirs of Wilkie’—Letter from Lockhart—John Sterling—John Stuart Mill’s ‘Logic’—Works refused—Mr. Lockhart’s article on Copyright—Letters from Thomas Mitchell—Mr. Gladstone—Southey’s illness and death—Lockhart’s article on Theodore Hook—Lieut. Eyre’s work on Afghanistan—Letter from Mr. Gladstone—Lady Sale’s ‘Journal’—Mr. Murray’s illness and death. page 484

CHAPTER XXXVII. JOHN MURRAY AS A PUBLISHER. page 508

ILLUSTRATIONS. Portrait of John Murray II. Frontispiece

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY.

CHAPTER XX. WORKS PUBLISHED IN 1817-18—CORRESPONDENCE, &C.—HOGG—SCOTT—MALCOLM.

Considerable space has been devoted to Blackwood’s Magazine during Murray’s part-ownership of that periodical, but it must not be supposed that the correspondence between the two publishers was confined to that topic; they were in constant communication about other matters of common interest, and chief among these were the works of Byron and Scott, in which they were jointly interested. Blackwood declared that he “was like to be torn to pieces for copies of Byron’s Poems.”

The first series of the ‘Tales of my Landlord’ had proved a great success, and while edition after edition was going off, Scott was busy with the second series, containing the ‘Heart of Midlothian’; but Murray and Blackwood had still 1500 copies of one edition of the first on their hands, when Ballantyne advertised a new edition of the work, in deliberate disregard of the existing arrangement with the other publishers. Blackwood expostulated with Ballantyne on this, as being “a piratical invasion of our property,” and threatened an action for damages. Counsel’s opinion was taken; Jeffrey and Cranstoun were retained, and the publishers determined to proceed, but as this would have called forth the author—who still remained incognito—into the witness-box, the action was compromised, by the two publishers obtaining from Ballantyne the subscription price for the unsold copies. When this affair was settled, the books were transferred to Constable.

Murray and Blackwood were also jointly interested in the publication of the works of the Ettrick Shepherd. In 1816, his ‘Mador of the Moor’ came out; and successive editions of ‘The Queen’s Wake’ were also published.

Mr. Wm. Blackwood to John Murray.

“I am happy to hear that ‘Mador’ has been doing so well. The Shepherd will be quite elated when he hears of it. He is at present in the Highlands, exploring the wild scenery of Argyleshire. I have not seen ‘Waterloo’ advertised yet.* It is a misfortune that it is very much in Mr. Scott’s manner. As Mr. S. said to me himself the other day, when talking of ‘Ilderim,’† ‘It does not do, Sir; every man should have a trump of his own.’”

Scott himself was beginning to suffer from the terrible mental and bodily strain to which he had subjected himself, and was shortly after seized with the illness to which reference has been made in a previous chapter, and which disabled him for some time. Blackwood informed Murray (7th March, 1817), that Mr. Scott “has been most dangerously ill, with violent pain arising from spasmodic action in the stomach; but he is gradually getting better. Was it not Johnson who said that Garrick’s death had eclipsed the gaiety of nations? Ballantyne informed me that he had been bled and blistered.” A few days later, Blackwood wrote to Murray again, enclosing copy of a note from Scott,

* Mr. Canning’s ode. † By H. Gally Knight.

in which he said: “I am greatly better, but not able to write. The author’s copy of the third volume of the ‘Curiosities of Literature’ reached me two or three days ago, as Robinson Crusoe says, to my exceeding refreshment. When you write to Murray, say I am still hors de combat. When anything new reaches you, I shall be glad to see it.”

For some time Scott remained in a state of exhaustion, unable either to stir for weakness and giddiness; or to read, for dazzling in his eyes; or to listen, for a whizzing sound in his ears—all indications of too much brain-work and mental worry. Yet, as soon as he was able to resume his labours, we find him characteristically employed in helping his poorer friends.

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. May 28th, 1817.

“Mr. Scott and some of his friends, in order to raise a sum of money to make the poor Shepherd comfortable, have projected a fourth edition of ‘The Queen’s Wake,’ with a few plates, to be published by subscription. We have inserted your name, as we have no doubt of your doing everything you can for the poor poet. The advertisement, which is excellent, is written by Mr. Scott.”

Hogg wrote one of his very complimentary letters to Murray for the exertions he was making in his behalf.

Mr. James Hogg to John Murray.

“I heard of your liberal subscription for the Author’s copy of ‘The Queen’s Wake,’ set on foot by some of my friends, and likewise that you were interesting yourself warmly in it. I must now inform you that the two guinea subscriptions have come so slowly in, that it has been abandoned, and the subscription copy now is to be royal octavo, price one guinea. Pray could not you at your sales get off a few of them for me among the trade; for as I have made nothing by my literary exertions for a long time bygone, I have enough need of it. You have quite given over writing to me; but pray do send me a few lines in answer to this, and tell me how you have been, and when I shall again have the pleasure of clinking a glass with you in Scotland.”

John Murray to Mr. James Hogg.

January 24th, 1818. My dear Sir,

I do assure you that your kind letter has afforded me very great pleasure; for although our correspondence has been suspended by my own indolence, and no other cause, yet my regard for you has never diminished, and I should much rejoice in any occasion of doing you a service. I shall have great pleasure in taking a share in your new work, and in being its publisher in London. With regard to the projected quarto edition of ‘The Queen’s Wake,’ I am not sorry that it is at an end; for you will gain more, I think, by one in royal octavo. But I really think that you ought to print a thousand in demy octavo to sell for 9s., and throw off no more in the larger size than you are confident of obtaining subscribers for—otherwise you will absolutely stop the sale of your book by printing it in a form that is neither customary nor useful, and retard at the same time the advancement of your own fame. If Blackwood likes, I will join in giving you at once half the profit of the edition of 1000 copies to sell at 9s., and let you throw off copies for your subscribers in royal octavo, paying only for the paper and working. If you will draw out a neat advertisement of the royal octavo, and give me all the names of subscribers, I will print the whole for you, and insert it in the next number of the Quarterly Review—of which, by the way, the number printed is now equal to that of the Edinburgh Review, 12,000, and which I expect to make 14,000 after two numbers. I beg you, at any rate, to put my name down upon your list for twenty-five copies, at £1 1s. each, and I will try to get you other subscribers. This is the very best time, if you will send me your advertisement and list of subscribers. I am happy to say that I have your portrait in my room—the one done by a painter in Edinburgh. I expect to receive the MS. of ‘Childe Harold,’ Canto IV. and last, in a few days, as Mr. Hobhouse is on his way from Venice with it. Lord Byron was very well. With sincere regard, I remain, my dear Sir,

Your faithful friend, John Murray .

Mr. James Hogg to John Murray.

March 28th, 1818. My Dear Sir,

I have delayed answering your very friendly letter so long, that I might be in Edinburgh and consult with Mr. Blackwood personally about its contents. He is extremely glad that you are going to interest yourself in my tales as well as the edition of ‘The Queen’s Wake,’ and advises me to conform to your proposals with regard to the tall edition of the ‘Wake,’ as to one who knows better than any man what will do with the public. . . . In the meantime you must make a long pull and a strong pull in London for subscriptions, as you and Mr. Rogers are the principal men we have to depend on. Walter Scott will write to you himself within these few days. . . . Blackwood is keeping the literary world and the trade here alive by that d—d Magazine of his. . . . P.S. I have seen Mr. Scott this moment, and he says he will not write till he has an article for the Review to send along with it, to put you in better humour; but in the meantime you may use his name freely to any friend of yours that you think likely to forward the subscription. You will hear from him very shortly.

J. H.

Mr. Scott did send the article (though it does not seem to have been inserted), and, on forwarding it, wrote:

Mr. W. Scott to John Murray.

“I send an article on our friend Hogg. It is too long and rather too dogmatical; but if you have room for it, it may do our poor friend some good, who really requires to have the public attention called to him now and then. Please to correspond on this subject with Mr. Grieve, North Bridge, to whom the article may be returned if it does not suit, or the consideration transmitted if it should find favour in Gifford’s eyes. Remember me kindly to him.”

Hogg was tempted by the Duke of Buccleuch’s gift of a farm on Eltrive Lake to build himself a house, as Scott was doing, and applied to Murray for a loan of £50, which was granted. In acknowledging the receipt of the money he wrote:—

Mr. James Hogg to John Murray.

August 11th, 1818.

.... I am told Gifford has a hard prejudice against me, but I cannot believe it. I do not see how any man can have a prejudice against me. He may, indeed, consider me an intruder in the walks of literature, but I am only a saunterer, and malign nobody who chooses to let me pass. . . . I was going to say before, but forgot, and said quite another thing, that if Mr. Gifford would point out any light work for me to review for him, I’ll bet a MS. poem with him that I’ll write it better than he expects.

Yours ever most sincerely, James Hogg .

As Scott still remained the Great Unknown, Murray’s correspondence with him related principally to his articles in the Quarterly, to which he continued an occasional contributor. Murray suggested to him the subjects of articles, and also requested him to beat up for a few more contributors. He wanted an article on the Gypsies, and if Scott could not muster time to do it, he hoped that Mr. Erskine might be persuaded to favour him with an essay.

John Murray to Mr. Scott. 1817.

“We look for the Killiecrankie article, which, from the peculiar appetite excited by these novels, will be most gratifying to the public. Would you like to dash off a few pages on the ‘Residence in Belgium,’ of which something may be said pro and con—mixed up with what yet remains in your mind upon the subject? The author is a Miss Waldie, a very amiable young lady; but I beg leave to remind you that its being my publication is not upon any account in the world to influence you even in the estimation of a hair. By the way, I send, as in duty bound, a letter which I got yesterday from Southey, in which he speaks of the ‘Tales,’ which Hallam, Frere, and W. S. Rose are discussing round my fire at this instant. Frere is repeating with delight whole passages of the Scotch.”

Scott, however, in the midst of pain and distress, was now busy with his ‘Rob Roy,’ which was issued towards the end of the year.

A short interruption of his correspondence with Murray occurred—Scott being busy in getting the long buried and almost forgotten ‘Regalia of Scotland’ exposed to light; he was also busy with one of his best novels, the ‘Heart of Midlothian.’ Murray, knowing nothing of these things, again endeavoured to induce him to renew his correspondence, especially his articles for the Review.

John Murray to Mr. Scott.

March 17th, 1818. My dear Sir,

Totally unable to account for the interruption of all interesting correspondence with you, I content myself with believing that it arises from causes wholly independent of me, and that when these subside, the bird of correspondence will fly to me again. In a word, I take it for granted that you have been fully occupied, and, having no time to spare on me or mine, you have left it to my own sense at once to make the discovery and to wait. Has the moment of temporary leisure yet arrived, and will you have the kindness to bestow it upon me? I sent you a volume of ‘Lord Orford’s Letters,’ hoping that the amusement and lightness of their subject might tempt you to dash off a review of them. They would admit of copious judicious extracts, forming an interesting and lively picture of the fashion of the times in which they were written, and of the character of their author. It would be doing me a great service to attempt this, and I am anxious for so pleasing a paper for the next number of the Quarterly. It will appear absurd to ask for more, when I have so little claim to ask for anything, but if the subject happened to please you, perhaps you would give a curious as well as an amusing review of Mr. Rose’s translation of the Animali parlanti; Mr. Frere’s ‘Whistlecraft,’ and (entre nous) Lord Byron’s ‘Beppo,’ showing their origin and object, and detailing their beauties and fun. ‘Beppo,’ a copy of which I hope you have received, is really an extraordinary effort, written in two nights, in consequence of reading ‘Whistlecraft.’ The attack upon your valued friend Sotheby* arises from his temerity in sending the author an anonymous letter, and from his having cut his acquaintance abroad. I have received the Fourth Canto, which contains finer things than the author has ever yet written, comprising a noble tribute to yourself, whose kindness he will not easily forget. I should be very glad if, when you and your friends are making arrangements with Constable, you thought of me; for I fancy that neither of us have any objection to publish good books in conjunction. Perhaps a word from you might yet induce Ballantyne to ask for my junction in the ‘New Tales of my Landlord,’ as it will be thought to be from dissatisfaction in their mighty author, that I am not their continued publisher. But I have no right to ask, much less to expect, any exertion in this way from one to whom I am already so much obliged; and it is only if an opening arises which may be penetrated without difficulty, that I will venture to hope that you will thrust me in. At any rate, do allow me the pleasure of receiving a few words from you.

Yours very faithfully and much obliged, John Murray .

* See page 24.

To this letter Scott replied—

Mr. Scott to John Murray.*

Abbotsford, March 23rd, 1818. Dear Murray, “Grieve not for me, my dearest dear, I am not dead; but sleepeth here.”

I have little to plead for myself, but the old and vile apologies of laziness and indisposition. I think I have been so unlucky of late as to have always the will to work when sitting at the desk hurts me, and the irresistible propensity to be lazy, when I might, like the man whom Hogarth introduces into Bridewell with his hands strapped up against the wall, “better work than stand thus.” I laid Kirkton aside when half finished, from a desire to get the original edition of the ‘Lives of Cameron,’ &c., by Patrick Walker, which I had not seen since a boy, and now I have got it, and find, as I suspected, that some curious morceaux have been cut out by subsequent editors. I will, without loss of time, finish the article, and think you will like it. Blackwood kidnapped an article for his Magazine on the Frankenstein story, which I intended for you. A very old friend and school companion of mine, and a gallant soldier, Sir Howard Douglas, has asked me to review his work on ‘Military Bridges.’ I must get a friend’s assistance for the scientific part, and add some Balaam of mine own (as printers’ devils say) to make up four or five pages. I have no objection to attempt ‘Lord Orford,’ if I have time, and find that I can do it with ease. Though far from admiring his character, I have always had a high opinion of his talents, and am well acquainted with his works. The letters you have published are, I think, his very best—lively, entertaining, and unaffected. I am greatly obliged to you for these, and other literary treasures, which I owe to your goodness from time to time. Although not thankfully acknowledged as they should be in course, these things are never thanklessly received. I could have sworn

* A considerable part but not the whole of this letter is published in Lockhart’s ‘Life of Scott.’

that ‘Beppo’ was founded on ‘Whistlecraft,’ as both were on ‘Anthony Hall,’ who, like ‘Beppo,’ had more wit than grace. I am not, however, in spirits at present for treating either of these worthies, or my friend Rose, though few have warmer wishes for any of the trio. But this confounded changeable weather has twice brought back my cramp in the stomach. Attacks, however, are not at all of the formidable description they were at first, still they only give way to laudanum, a medicine which disagrees with me particularly. We have had snow and frost alternately, and I have so much the habits of robust health that I am too apt to run after my workpeople in all weathers, but I suppose time and pain will make me wiser at last.

I do not know anything about Mr. Ballantyne’s arrangements with Constable. I only understand generally that he had some unexpected difficulties in settling with Blackwood; and doing the best he can for an author who does not act for himself, I suppose he has tried to mend his market elsewhere. I have no reason to think my interference en the occasion could be of service in the way you mention.

The newspapers have been croaking, I hope inaccurately, respecting Lady Byron’s health. I should like much to know how she is. Adieu. My next shall be with a packet.

Yours truly, Walter Scott .

P.S.—Direct to Edinburgh if anything occurs. How do you stand with ‘Paul’s Letters’? The other publishers are, I believe, out. I do not, however, mean to press a new edition unless I should go abroad again. Remember me kindly to Gifford.

It will be seen from the foregoing letter that Scott, with the best intentions regarding Murray, was practically powerless in the disposal of his own works, but perhaps on this account he was all the more ready to exert himself on behalf of the Quarterly.

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, May 15th, 1818.

I received your favour of Friday this morning, and now enclose the sheet. I wish some of your learned men would still give a glance at the algebra. I am not confident in these matters, and a blunder would be discreditable.

My delay to review Canto IV., ‘Childe Harold,’ does not arise from my not liking the conclusion of that extraordinary poem,—very much the contrary. But I would like to have full time to read over the former Cantos, and form something like a general view of the whole, and the time did not suffice for that purpose. I will endeavour to meet your wishes against the next number. By this you will have received Orford. I have got D’Israeli from Blackwood, and I enclose reference to the quotation, which you will patch together as well as may be, unless you have done it already.

Hogg’s Tales are a great failure, to be sure. With a very considerable portion of original genius he is sadly deficient, not only in correct taste, but in common tact. But I hope you will not cancel the title-page, because it would be doing the poor fellow irretrievable injury. We are now trying to get subscriptions for an edition of ‘The Queen’s Wake,’ his best poem, for his own immediate benefit, for by the failure of the bookseller he was deprived of all emolument from his most popular work. Now your withdrawing your name from his Tales would be a sad slap in the face. After all, you who print so many good books can suffer nothing from now and then publishing one which, for the sake of the author, we may all wish better.

In case you have time I add a curious quotation from ‘Kirkton.’ The copy I had in the country lacked the leaves which contain it, otherwise I would have inserted it before, for it is capital. I am here for two months, but I hope your journey and visit will rather take place when I am at Abbotsford.

What manner of book is ‘Evelyn’s Diary’? If there is stuff in it for a review I should like to try it.

Remember me kindly to Gifford, to whom I will write in two days. I trouble you with a letter for the twopenny post-bag.

I will give you an article on D’Israeli—I have notes lying by me—on the Calamities of Authors, which contain some curious literary anecdotes. I suppose they may be blended together.

Yours truly, W. S.

What Scott thought of Byron may be inferred from his interview with Blackwood at Edinburgh.

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray.

“He told me that he had no objection in the least (but the contrary) to be known as the author of the critique. He said he had written it with the feeling that it was the only way to expect better things from Lord Byron to treat his conduct gently. He would not wonder, he said, if his Lordship should yet become a very different man, and as people often go from one extreme to another, he would not be surprised at seeing him a Methodist. I happened to remark that there was one evident amelioration in Lord Byron’s views, for in his later poems there was frequent reference to a great First Cause, and not the gloomy materialism which was too often seen in his former works. Mr. S. said he regretted he had not noticed this.”

John Murray to Mr. W. Scott.

June 6th, 1818. Dearest Sir,

I have the pleasure of sending you a copy of the new number of my Review, to which your unabated kindness has contributed so much value. As we cannot afford to put all our plums into one pudding, Mr. Gifford has reserved the amusing paper on ‘Lord Orford’s Letters’ for our next number. I have therefore enclosed it to you revised, and shall be happy if it receive any enlargement of interesting extracts which may have occurred to you. . . I am sorry to say, Southey had nearly completed an article on Evelyn’s delightful memoirs before I had been favoured with your inquiry. But I would like to send for your consideration Miss Aikin’s very entertaining ‘Court of Queen Elizabeth,’ and Coxe’s ‘Memoirs of the Duke of Marlborough.’ Perhaps you will favour me with putting your memoranda together on D’Israeli’s work. George Chalmers persists in his determination to publish the private life of Queen Mary, on the printing of which he has already made great progress. This will afford an opportunity for giving a most interesting account of this unfortunate woman, and of the characters and times of her reign. I have myself ten or twelve original letters,—from which something might be extracted—written during her confinement in Sheffield Castle. Now, if you would do me the favour to make your memoranda for such a subject,—and much preparation you must already have formed in spite of yourself,—and favour me by writing the life, which you could accomplish easily in three or four sheets of the Review, I shall have the pleasure of being your debtor in the sum of 100 guineas and a hundredweight of obligation. I have just parted with Mr. and Mrs. Somerville, who set out for Edinburgh on Wednesday. I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you before the autumn closes.

I remain, dear Sir, &c., &c., J. Murray .

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

Abbotsford, July, 1818. Dear Sir,

I am busy with an article, which the General Election has sadly interrupted. Every one, you see, is worried on these occasions more or less; and I had two elections to attend. I hope to send ‘Harold’* early next week. I will also attempt the little article promised. I have however committed the blunder of locking up both the second part of the National Poem and Rose’s book carefully in Edinburgh; and I will be obliged to you to lend me other copies. I should also be glad to see Rose’s original ‘Gli animali parlanti’, if it can be bought or borrowed. I am here, in all hurry and bustle, taking possession of an instalment of my additional building, where you will find me on your coming this way; and I hope you will bring Mrs. Murray with you, in which request my wife joins. I have at present hardly a place to write upon, or a pen to write with.

* Review of the Fourth Canto of ‘Childe Harold,’ Q. R., No. 37.

Towards the end of the year, Mr. Murray paid a visit to Edinburgh on business, and after seeing Mr. Blackwood, and expostulating with him in person as to the personalities in the magazine—apparently without effect—he made his way southward, to pay his promised visit to Walter Scott at Abbotsford, an account of which has already been given in the correspondence with Lord Byron.

John Murray to Mr. Walter Scott.

September 3rd, 1818. My very dear Sir,

I rejoice in the opportunity of presenting my best thanks to you for your very kind reception of me at your delightful Castle, and for the gratification which I derived from your amiable family. Long may your health and happiness last. Our confidential communication has made a great impression on my mind, and our friend Mr. Gifford appeared no less struck by its palpable good sense and propriety. With regard to the magazine, I have been obliged to write peremptorily to Blackwood to say that if the scurrilous part of the personality be continued, my name must be removed. Hunt and Hazlitt merit every exposure and chastisement, but it is not for me to inflict it in the way it has been done. Besides, it lowers completely the tone and character of the journal, to which respectable persons will cease to contribute, as they would soon find themselves exposed to the abuse of such fellows in return. Indeed, I cannot conceive how our friends, of so much character as well as genius, can condescend to the use of such language. Barrow, as the head of all my most respected friends, has told me that it would be utterly detrimental to my character to continue my name any longer; and there is no occasion for its use, for if the writers direct their minds to higher objects, to which they are fully competent, the journal will sell ten times better. I have already raised the sale 500 copies since I have joined in it. These personalities absolutely tied up my hands, for it is now a constant reproach. I think you must be equally aware of this. To be sure, I was not myself sensible of the effect, until I took upon myself the responsibility. But now that I do feel its operation, I would not undergo it longer for any consideration.

I trust that you will have thought with every one here, that the number of the Quarterly is excellent. I don’t know if the subject of the ‘Translation of the Bible’* will yet have attracted you, but you will find it exceedingly interesting and most powerfully executed. I have got a copy of ‘Tales of the Dead,’ which I will take an early opportunity of sending to you, and perhaps you will send me a paper upon it. I am very much obliged by the two articles which you have contributed to our present number (No. 36). . . . There is no chance, I fear, that Sir John Malcolm will get the appointment which Sir Evan Nepean wants. Every one of his personal friends are out of the direction by rotation, and Elphinstone will get it. They are all alike deserving of it, and are the very best friends.

With the greatest esteem, Yours sincerely, John Murray .

James Hogg, who was present at the meeting of Scott and Murray at Abbotsford, wrote to Murray as follows:—

James Hogg to John Murray.

Edinburgh, February 20th, 1819. My dear Sir,

I arrived here the day before yesterday for my spring campaign in literature, drinking whiskey, &c., and as I have not heard a word of you or from you since we parted on the top of the hill above Abbotsford, I dedicate my first letter from the metropolis to you. And first of all, I was rather disappointed in getting so little cracking with you at that time. Scott and you had so much and so many people to converse about, whom nobody knew anything of but yourselves, that you two got all to say, and some of us great men, who deem we know everything at home, found that we knew nothing. You did not even tell me what conditions you were going to give me for my ‘Jacobite Relics of Scotland,’ the first part of which will

* This article was by Dr. D’Oyly.

make its appearance this spring, and I think bids fair to be popular. . . . Our worthy friend, Scott, has again had an attack of the cramp in his stomach, and yesterday when I saw him he was very far from being well. He spoke in the very highest terms of both the Quarterly and the Magazine.

Believe me, yours very faithfully, James Hogg.

When young Walter Scott passed through London in June 1819, on the way to join his regiment, the 18th Hussars, at Cork, his father commends him to Murray.

As my son Walter passes through London to join his regiment, I have desired him to look in at Albemarle Street, about four or five o’clock, when he has a moment to spare. I do not send him any letters of recommendation; but I will be much obliged to you to name him to any of my friends that may chance to be with you, that he may say he has seen some of the English literati en passant.

Mr. Scott to John Murray.

July 3rd, 1819. Dear Sir,

I desired John Ballantyne to show the little edition of ‘Cary’* (for the original manuscript of which I was many years since obliged to you), and to ask you whether you chose to take it at £105, or preferred accepting as many copies as would gratify your amateur friends. As he writes me that you have made the former option, I draw on you for £103 15s. at three months, instead of £105 at six. The bill may be easily renewed to the full term of credit; but I want the money just now to help out Walter’s appointments, which come pretty heavy.

I have to thank you for your kind attention to the young soldier, who wrote me that he was to spend a day with you before he left town. I thought of being in town myself; but though in some degree recovered, I am not stout enough for a long journey. So that if you come

* This was the ‘Memoirs of Robert Cary, Earl of Monmouth,’ published by Constable and Murray in 1808.

down to Scotland, you will find me stationary at Abbotsford, should you travel that way.

Yours, very truly, Walter Scott .

After the discontinuance of Murray’s business connection with Blackwood, described in the preceding chapter, James Hogg wrote in great consternation:

Mr. James Hogg to John Murray.

Eltrive, by Selkirk, Dec. 9th, 1829. My dear Sir,

By a letter from Blackwood to-day, I have the disagreeable intelligence that circumstances have occurred which I fear will deprive me of you as a publisher—I hope never as a friend; for I here attest, though I have heard some bitter things against you, that I never met with any man whatever who, on so slight an acquaintance, has behaved to me so much like a gentleman. Blackwood asks to transfer your shares of my trifling works to his new agents. I answered, “Never! without your permission.” As the ‘Jacobite Relics’ are not yet published, and as they would only involve you further with one with whom you are going to close accounts, I gave him liberty to transfer the shares you were to have in them to Messrs. Cadell and Davies. But when I consider your handsome subscription for ‘The Queen’s Wake,’ if you have the slightest inclination to retain your shares of that work and ‘The Brownie,’ as your name is on them, along with Blackwood, I would much rather, not only from affection, but interest, that you should continue to dispose of them.

I know these books are of no avail to you; and that if you retain them, it will be on the same principle that you published them, namely, one of friendship for your humble poetical countryman. I’ll never forget your kindness; for I cannot think that I am tainted with the general vice of authors’ ingratitude; and the first house that I call at in London will be the one in Albemarle Street.

I remain, ever yours most truly, James Hogg.

Murray did not cease to sell the Shepherd’s works, and made arrangements with Blackwood to continue his agency for them, and to account for the sales in the usual way.

In recording the dealings of Murray with Blackwood we have already mentioned the name of one of the correspondents whom he secured for Blackwood’s Magazine, Mr. Thomas Mitchell, one of the first Greek scholars of his day, who on taking his B.A. degree at Pembroke College, Cambridge, had received a silver cup, valued at thirty guineas, for his remarkable scholarship. He also gained an open fellowship at Sidney-Sussex College. He was thoroughly Atticised, and yet his learning did not seem to be acquired, but to form a part of his nature and surroundings. After he left college he became a tutor in the family of Mr. Hope, the author of ‘Anastasius,’ and travelled with his sons. On his return to England he began to write for the press, and the high commendation which his translation of the ‘Birds of Aristophanes’ met with privately from Gifford, encouraged him to proceed with the translation of ‘The Knights,’ with a view to publication. Writing to Murray (27th July, 1817), he said, “Visiting your Critical Room does not tend to inspire confidence.” There he met John Hookham Frere—also a distinguished Greek scholar—Gifford, Hallam, and many other authors. He wished to include Mr. Frere’s translation of the Chorus in ‘The Knights’; but he eventually made one of his own. There was much correspondence between him and Murray on the subject, and at length his work was ready for publication.

Mr. T. Mitchell to John Murray. Oct. 19th, 1818.

“To what has been already done I certainly look back with satisfaction; and I am more and more persuaded that a translation of ‘Aristophanes’ will be a real public service, in showing how many more blessings we enjoy in our constitution than young men of imagination are apt to allow themselves to believe. It is a very great satisfaction to me to find that Mr. Gifford’s eye has been upon the work in its progress. Be pleased to express to him how sensible I am of his kindness.”

Nov. 13th, 1818.

“Your letter of the 11th reached me too late to admit of being answered by return of post; but I should not do justice to the feelings which it excited in me if I did not seize the first opportunity of expressing in the warmest terms the sense I entertain of its kind, friendly, and, I may say, affectionate language. It will form a very satisfactory answer to all questions which continually assail me as to the reasons why ‘Aristophanes’ yet remains unpublished; and for all the rest I leave myself in your hands with the most perfect confidence. Your very liberal offer for writing in the Quarterly Review I duly appreciate; but as most of the materials which I have collected will be inserted at intervals in the ‘Aristophanes,’ I doubt whether what is left will be an adequate compensation for what is offered. It is too handsome, however, not to stimulate me to make the attempt. The season is now so much advanced, and my health so inadequate at present to any great exertion, that I believe we must drop the thoughts of bringing the ‘Aristophanes’ out this season. . . . With regard to my future plans in life, I will communicate with you on a future occasion: I am sufficiently aware of your value and estimation in society to know that, whatever my plans may be, they will stand a chance of being most materially assisted by your countenance and friendship.”

On the 22nd November, Mr. Mitchell sent part of the preface to ‘The Clouds,’ and wrote:

“It just strikes me that the enclosed would furnish no bad paper for the Quarterly Review, and if you should like it in that way, I could easily dress it up for the purpose. I thank you for your kind attention in sending me a draft for £50; but I am in no immediate want of money, and I would rather that all considerations of the kind were dropped, till we settle whether the work shall be continued after the printing of ‘The Clouds.’ I therefore return it. I will not fail to think of your wishes respecting the Quarterly Review and Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. I have already two or three subjects in my thoughts for each, and indeed whatever I do hereafter in literature, I should wish to confine myself entirely to those two publications, as my opinions on almost all matters are strictly in unison with them, and I begin to be of an age [he was then thirty-five] when opinions on all matters of importance should be no longer in any state of fluctuation. I live too much in a state of seclusion to know who are the writers in the latter work; but they seem to me very able men, and I have been exceedingly amused by some of their lucubrations. The ‘Mad Banker of Amsterdam’ pleased me beyond measure.”

From this time Mr. Mitchell, who became one of Murray’s most esteemed personal friends, continued to write articles for the Quarterly Review and Blackwood on the Grecian Philosophy, on the Convivial Parties of the Greeks, on the State of Female Society in Greece, on Grecian Women, on the Character of Socrates, the Characters of Xenophon and Plato, and other subjects connected with his translation of ‘Aristophanes.’ Mr. Murray maintained a regular correspondence with Mr. Mitchell, and occasionally gave his opinions of the articles which he transmitted. With respect to his article on Grecian Philosophy, Mitchell wrote:

Mr. T. Mitchell to John Murray.

“It may have rather a scholastic appearance, but I have given a light entrance to it in the hope of entrapping readers. Pray continue your remarks. It is to persons of your class—men of general intelligence and education, but whom other avocations have prevented from entering deeply into the more mechanical parts of the learned languages—that I wish chiefly to address myself. I do not believe that any age or country ever possessed a body of men so circumstanced as our own does at this present time; and which gives an opening to every species of literature being properly and justly appreciated.”

The number of new works now brought out by Mr. Murray was very great. He wrote to Lord Byron:

John Murray to Lord Byron. Sept. 1817.

“My hands are quite full. I am preparing several accounts of the unfortunate ‘China Expedition’—by Lord Amherst, Captain Hall, Mr. McLeod, surgeon, and last, but not least, Mr. Ellis (Lord Buckinghamshire’s son), who was second in command. I have also Captain Tuckey’s Journal, a very interesting one, of the Mission to Africa, right to the day of his death. All Burckhardt’s papers (the Sheikh Ibrim); two new novels, left by Miss Austen, the ingenious author of ‘Pride and Prejudice,’ who, I am sorry to say, died about six weeks ago; a ‘History of the Middle Ages’ (two vols. 4to.), by Mr. Hallam; cum multis aliis. I hope to be allowed to place at the head of the list ‘Childe Harold,’ Canto IV. . . . I am rejoiced at the prospect of again opening my Literary Campaign under such brilliant auspices.”

We have several times had occasion to refer to Mr. Frere’s ‘Whistlecraft,’* a curious and brilliant jeu d’esprit. now almost forgotten, but which affords evidence that if Mr. Frere’s ambition had been equal to his genius, he might have placed his name high among the poets of his age. In a letter to Mr. Murray relating to the extravaganza, he writes:—

Mr. Frere to John Murray.

Tunbridge Wells, 27th April, 1818. Dear Murray,

The stanzas which I now send, you have I believe seen before. There are in all upwards of a hundred, including a Whistlecraftian view of the æra of Pericles, Phidias, the

* ‘A Prospectus and Specimen of an Intended National Work, by William and Thomas Whistlecraft, of Stowmarket, in Suffolk, Harness and Collar Makers, intended to comprise the most interesting Particulars relating to Sir Arthur and his Round Table.’

Elgin Marbles, and the Peloponnesian War, after which a few stanzas will conclude the siege of the Convent, and bring round the unity of the story; but there are eighty which may be printed by themselves, though I should like to divide them differently. What you say of the style, as foreign to our general taste, is perfectly true. The public have no notion of wit or humour without malignity, and put themselves at a loss for a meaning which they conclude must be an ill-natured one; perhaps they will like this better, for it has seemed good to me to gibbet a couple of names en passant, and to make a political allusion which is pretty palpable. I was, I confess, mortified at seeing no notice of ‘Whistlecraft’ in the last Quarterly. It might, I think, have occupied the place of ‘Adams on Cataract.’ What has the Quarterly to do with cataracts, or catheters, or cataplasms, or with any subjects which are neither of political, national, or literary interest?

With respect to advertising. The advertisements that I see are nothing to the purpose. ‘Whistlecraft, a National Poem,’ is nothing; but ‘Metrical Prospectus and Specimen’ gives an intimation of the possibility of good nonsense in the work. If you have a mind to advertise, I will furnish one—e.g. (after the old collar-making advertisement): “This article is confidently recommended to the public from its superior durability, being warranted not to wear out by the most repeated perusals.

“First purchase ‘Whistlecraft,’ and then Peruse and re-peruse again, A dozen times at least, or ten; The flights of his Stowmarket pen Require a keen attentive ken, Soaring above all other men, As much as hawks surpass the wren. Let Envy grumble from her Den, While Pindus yields from Dupham Fen. Confucius, Poet-in-Ordinary to Her Majesty’s Lottery Office Keepers, Warren’s Blacking, &c., &c.”

If you have the spirit to put in a longer, I will send you an excellent one, containing the testimonies of posterity in the same manner as they sometimes put in the testimonies of the reviews. “The following testimonies to the merit of this work may be expected to appear early in the ensuing century.” But it is too long to write unless you wish to have it, which you may let me know. Your usual prudery about advertising is quite out of place with such a work as this. A man comes into a room with a strange, uncouth foreign uniform. If he looks shy and diffident, he is immediately the last man in the company, and nobody troubles themselves about him. If he puts himself confidently forward, he becomes an object of general notice and curiosity. This is precisely the case with Whistlecraft’s title-page. What you say of the opinion of the best judges is very satisfactory in one respect, and might induce me to go on if the work were a serious one; but to write a burlesque poem for men of good taste to laugh at in private, is not an object of very exalted ambition. A sober man (Burke says it of himself) may condescend to amuse the populace with innocent buffoonery, but it would not I apprehend become him to go on with his grimaces if the mob look grave. If I should be induced to go on with the work, you will have nothing to apprehend from the shortness of your term in it. My object was to prevent the possibility (as literary history furnishes some examples of quarrels between booksellers and authors) of having the first cantos of a work which I was continuing wholly out of my own hands. I shall rate my present stanzas at two guineas apiece. If you think this too much, I will beg you to return them. I will stand my trial with posterity upon the first cantos, and if you should ultimately be a loser, I will find some way or other of reimbursing you. But for the future I shall require a higher stimulus to withdraw me from playing backgammon of an evening, which has been my main occupation this winter. I was much pleased to find that Lord Byron was pleased with ‘Whistlecraft,’ but you do not mean to deny that ‘Beppo’ is W. Rose’s. I mean to assert it positively and distinctly. If I had seen it in his handwriting, I could hardly be more convinced of it than I am. It is much better than anything that he has done before, but there are his very phrases, and in some stanzas about the weather a sort of valetudinary tone, which belongs to him. I shall lose my walk if I write any more.

Believe me, sincerely yours, J. H. Frere .

In a later letter, Mr. Frere says, “Do not insert the buffoonish advertisement which I sent you.”

Mr. Frere to John Murray.

May 4th, 1818. My Dear Murray,

I send you the concluding stanzas of the fourth canto. . . . Lord Byron has paid me a great compliment indeed. You will have thought it odd that I should persist in my first impressions after your letter, but the expression was ambiguous, and I fancied that it was intendedly so. In fact, I was only convinced by seeing it in the printed list of his works. If I had been in the habit of laying wagers, I might have been finely taken in; for the attack on Botherby* appeared fully to me to account for its being attributed to Lord Byron, yet the expressions in it are such as (between ourselves) I have heard from W. Rose. But this is something like old Chalmers showing that he was in the right in believing the Ireland papers to be Shakespeare’s. By-the-bye, that Shakespearian faculty of transforming himself was a quality which I did not think belonged to Byron in so high a degree as ‘Beppo’ has shown that it does. I am obliged to walk to the Wells, and remain,

Yours very sincerely, J. H. Frere .

The last letter of Frere’s that we shall give relates partly to ‘Whistlecraft,’ and partly to his ‘Translation of Aristophanes’:—

Mr. Frere to John Murray.

Tunbridge Wells, May 29th, 1818. Dear Murray,

My brother has sent me an account of his negotiations with you. I certainly do not think that the office of buffoon to the public is which any one man ought to apply

* Meaning Sotheby. Byron supposed that he had sent him an anonymous letter, though Sotheby denied it. An account of ‘Whistlecraft’ is given, with extracts, in the large one-volume edition of Byron’s works, 1837, p. 142.

for a second time, especially at my time of life. But this may perhaps be considered as making a part of the first sample, and therefore you are welcome to print it gratuitously for the remainder of your term in the post. If the public before-mentioned would have been contented with mere humour and creative fancy, and what in the old style was “honest mirth,” I would willingly have condescended to “make sport for them.” I had done about 26 stanzas of a new canto, but I consider your pecuniary estimate of the value of the work as the only way in which I can receive from you an undisguised and uncomplimentary opinion as to the probability of its popularity, and I cannot go on rhyming for rhyming’s sake, or for the chance that posterity may laugh at my verses when I am dead. You are welcome, however, to what has been produced under a different impression.

With respect to ‘Aristophanes,’ I do not think it would be fair to the present translator to insert in his work those parts which I had selected and translated as the most capable of affording a good translation. This would be picking the plums out of the pudding. You may be assured, however, that if I publish anything, it will not be in a way calculated to injure your interest in the present translation; but rather I should hope to promote it by attracting attention to the merits of the original. I have translated about a third of two other plays which you have never seen, and which will probably see the light some time or other.* But I shall be glad to consult you as to the time and mode in which I shall do it. These, however, are things that will keep, and I am in no hurry either to finish or publish them.

I remain, yours sincerely, J. H. Frere .

The name of Robert Owen is but little remembered now, but at the early part of the century he attained some notoriety from his endeavours to reform society. He was manager of the Lanark Cotton Mills, but in 1825 he emigrated to America, and bought land on the Wabash

* Mr. Frere published a collected Edition of his Translations of ‘Aristophanes,’ some twenty years after this, in Malta.

whereon to start a model colony, called New Harmony. This enterprise failed, and he returned to England in 1827. The following letter is in answer to his expressed intention of adding Mr. Murray’s name to the title-page of the second edition of his ‘New View of Society.’

John Murray to Mr. Robert Owen.

September 9th, 1817. Dear Sir,

As it is totally inconsistent with my plans to allow my name to be associated with any subject of so much political notoriety and debate as your New System of Society, I trust that you will not consider it as any diminution of personal regard if I request the favour of you to cause my name to be immediately struck out from every sort of advertisement that is likely to appear upon this subject. I trust that a moment’s reflection will convince you of the utter impropriety of my receiving the books of registry which I understand you talked of sending to my house. I beg leave again to repeat that I retain the same sentiments of personal esteem, and that I am, dear Sir,

Your faithful servant, John Murray .

At the beginning of 1817 a curious correspondence took place with respect to the publishing of American books in England, and of English books in America. William Theobald Wolfe Tone—son of Theobald Wolfe Tone, who had, with the help of a French army under General Hoche, attempted to get up a rebellion in Ireland at the end of 1796—had emigrated to America, and, in the first place, endeavoured to obtain an honest living by entering into the bookselling and publishing business. He was not at all successful, and shortly after abandoned it, and entered the United States Artillery as lieutenant, having himself been a soldier under Napoleon I. He had, how-ever, called upon Kirk & Co., publishers of the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews in America, as well as of the works of Lord Byron—all pirated of course. Kirk communicated with Mr. Murray, and expressed himself as willing to enter into a mutual arrangement with him for the early sheets of works published by him in England, and which he thought might be worthy of republication in America.

His proposal may be regarded as the forerunner of what is now called the “Advance Sheets” system, which is practised by English and American publishers.

Mr. Kirk to John Murray.

“Gentlemen in the trade on your side of the Atlantic, largely interested in the publication of very valuable and expensive copyright works, have long and deeply felt the great inconveniences, and to them the injurious operation of the laws in this country, inasmuch as they do not recognise the copyright of any book published by citizens of another state or nation. In this state of things, a remedy has presented itself to our minds, to wit, to make an arrangement founded on principles of reciprocity and confidence, and divide the profits arising from the first republication of new works in this country with the publisher in England who first sends out the copy. With this view, we propose that you furnish us with the sheets as printed, to be forwarded by duplicate conveyances as speedily as possible, of all such books of merit and general interest as might be deemed suitable for republication in America. On all such books thus forwarded by you, and republished by us, we propose to allow you one-third of the net profits, the proportion due to you to be subject to your order in six or eight months from the time of republication.”

Mr. Kirk further stated that the first book which he proposed Mr. Murray to republish in England was the ‘Narrative of Captain James Riley’; and he at the same time desired Captain Riley to address Mr. Murray relating to his ‘Narrative,’ which arrived in due time.

Captain Riley to John Murray.

“The book which I am about to publish is an authentic account of my own shipwreck and sufferings on the Western Coast of Africa.* I was redeemed from the worst of barbarous slavery by an Englishman, who possesses not only all the virtues and all the sympathetic feelings so justly attributed to the British character, but an elevation of soul which will not fail to enrol his name high on the imperishable list of worthy benefactors of mankind—I mean William Willshire, Esquire, a native of London. This work, though written by a seaman, I am confident will be read with avidity and interest by every class of readers throughout the civilized world, and in Great Britain it cannot fail to prove a source of uncommon profit to its publisher and proprietors.”

This was certainly very high praise to come from the author of the work; yet it was justified by the result. Captain Riley desired that Mr. Murray should secure a copyright for the book if possible, and stated that he wished to share the profits with the widows and children of his unfortunate shipmates, who had been left destitute. Mr. Murray could not secure a copyright for the book, because it had already been published in the United States, but he at once published it, and subsequently sent Captain Riley half the profits of the sale. What was thought of the interest of the narrative may be understood from what Blackwood wrote to Murray.

Mr. Blackwood to John Murray. May, 1817.

“What a treat you have given to Mrs. B. and me in ‘Riley’! I never read anything so affecting and interesting. We cried over it yesterday like children. Surprising and

* ‘The Authentic Narrative of the loss of the American Brig Commerce, on the Western Coast of Africa, with the sufferings of her surviving Officers and Crew.’

almost incredible as the events are, yet there is a verity and touching simplicity, with a natural eloquence of language, which have perhaps never been surpassed. Our philosophers laugh at religious feeling, but if it were no more than a matter of taste, if they thought justly, they would acknowledge its power.”

Among the other new books published by Mr. Murray in 1817 were Mr. Charles Bucke’s ‘Beauties, Harmonies, and Sublimities of Nature’—described by Sir James Mackintosh as “one of the most beautiful works he had ever read, and that it must stand at the head of its class in modern times;” Mr. Charles Butler’s ‘Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics since the Reformation’—one of the ablest books of the time, which soon went to a third edition; Sheil’s tragedy of ‘The Apostate,’ for which Murray gave the author £400 the day after he had seen it acted at Covent Garden; William Stewart Rose’s ‘Letters from the North of Italy,’ addressed to Henry Hallam, for which Murray gave the author 300 guineas; La Rochejaquelein’s ‘Narrative of The Campaign in La Vendée’; G. F. Leckie’s work on the ‘Balance of Power in Europe’; John Macleod’s ‘Voyage of H.M.S. Alceste to the Island of Loochoo’; and various other books, hereafter to be mentioned.

Mr. Murray received a letter from Sir John Malcolm, with a review of Captain Williams’ work on the Bengal Army.

Sir John Malcolm to John Murray.

Trincomalee, March 3rd, 1817.

You will not be sorry to hear that I am going on with my Letters with good success. Five are finished, and eleven or twelve will make a fair-sized quarto. They will include a journey across the Peninsula from Madras to Bombay, by Hyderabad and Poonah. The visit to these capitals in 1799 gave me the opportunity of writing what I am now revising—the account of the rise of Mahomedan and Hindu power in the South of India, with a description of the country, buildings, and the characteristics and manners of its actual inhabitants. These letters will finish at Bombay, with a description of the character of the Indians. The next volume will be devoted to Persia. I once thought, from the fund of matter I had collected, that it would surpass the Indian series. But as I proceed, my opinion changes; and if I can manage to make the whole like those I have done, and I see no reason to doubt why I should, my Persian production will be a younger brother. The style of these letters is to my taste. I can be critically correct on historical facts, and strike off at pleasure into an interesting tale relating to a king, a dancing girl, a tomb, a queen, a palace, or a snake, and yet preserve unity; making the whole bear on one point, a full and faithful delineation of the usages, habits, and character of the natives of India. I am not yet resolved what I shall do with this production. If it never goes further, it will be of use, as it has served to condense all that is worth preserving of my letters, journals, &c. If I determine on its publication, you shall hear. But I see, from what is done, that I can form no judgment of its value till it is completed.*

Ever yours, John Malcolm .

Mr. Murray had already begun to identify himself with works of voyages and travels—to the North Pole, and into the interior of Africa; his chief helper in the enterprise being his active friend, John Barrow, Under-Secretary of the Admiralty, who in May, 1817, brought to him the account of the ill-fated expedition to explore the Congo which was despatched by the Admiralty, with full equipment in 1816, to trace the river to its source. Fever, however, of a virulent type broke out among the members of the expedition, and nearly all of them, including Captain Tuckey, R.N., the commander, died.

* These letters were afterwards published in ‘Murray’s Home and Colonial Library.’

The Journals were published for the benefit of the widows and orphans of the unhappy sufferers.

Mr. Murray gave £400 for the Journal, but, as in the case of Mungo Park’s narrative, it was soon discovered that some portion of the MS. had been surreptitiously printed and issued elsewhere.

Mr. Barrow to John Murray.

August 25th, 1817.

It is too true that the rascals have somehow or other got access to Tuckey’s ‘Journal,’ through what channel I fear it will be utterly impossible to discover, or if we could discover, be able to prevent them going on; the extraordinary fact is that none but common artificers and seamen returned, all the officers, except the master, the surgeon, and a mate having died; and the master, as he thought, having secured all the Journals. I sent for our solicitor, and desired him to inquire if there were any means of laying an injunction on the further publication; but he thinks there are not, and if there were it could only be done by the Chancellor on affidavit that the MS. belonged to the public, and the Court of Chancery is closed till the end of October. Perhaps it will be better to take no notice of it, as it does not seem to have attracted any; and if we could print two sheets every day, the work might come out at the end of September; but then I doubt whether the colonial part would be ready. As far as relates to myself I am now ready with the Introduction, and could very soon have the remaining part in a state of forwardness. But your plates—when will they be ready?

August 30th, 1817.

“I would give something to detect the vagabond who has stolen it. I have written to the master, and to Mrs. Tuckey, but I don’t believe that they know the least about it. Could not you set to work some cunning fellow to get at it?”

September 1st, 1830.

“I have seen Mrs. Tuckey, and she tells me that Mrs. Eyre, the fat purser’s widow, informed her that among her husband’s things she found a copy of a journal which she supposed to be her husband’s. I have sent her to Mrs. Eyre to desire her to call on me. This is no doubt the channel, and it is probably confirmed by her living in the Strand. If she comes, I will endeavour to frighten her so far as to prevail on her to endeavour to recover the MS.

“I sat up last night over Mr. Macleod’s* narrative till I had nearly got through it, which proves at least that it interested me, and I am much deceived if it will not interest others. There is no pretence of science or fine writing about it; but the story of the voyage, and the description of the Loo-Choo Islands in particular, is told in a plain, intelligible, and unaffected manner. It will certainly make a very entertaining readable octavo volume; and will afford a very pretty little article for the Review; so that you have it in two ways, and it will not in the least interfere with Ellis’s quarto.”

Mr. Murray continued to publish a few poems besides those of Lord Byron. Mrs. Hemans was not very successful at first. She regretted (26th February, 1817) the loss which had been occasioned through the publication of ‘The Restoration of the Arts,’ and requested Mr. Murray to suggest any subject, or style of writing likely to be more popular. Her poem on the ‘Elgin Marbles’ had not been satisfactory; and she seemed at a loss how to employ her pen. But on the death of the Princess Charlotte, in November 1817, there was a great outburst of poetry. Poems on the subject came from all quarters—from England, Scotland, and Ireland. Mrs. Hemans again tried her hand in the ‘Monody on the Princess Charlotte.’

Some time later Major H. Browne, on the part of Mrs. Hemans (his sister), sent Mr. Murray the first canto of the ‘Abencerrages,’ and requested “a liberal offer for the copyright.” He also showed his unfamiliarity with literary procedure by asking that Mr. Gifford would allot a page of the Quarterly to a review of the work.

* Voyage of the Alceste to China.

Mr. Murray kept up his correspondence and friendship with Mrs. Hemans for many years, and published several of her works. For the copyright of the ‘Vespers of Palermo,’ referred to in the following letter, he paid her 200 guineas.

Mrs. Hemans to John Murray.

Brownhylfa, March 31st, 1821.

I have had the pleasure of receiving your letter, and according to your desire, will draw upon you for the amount you authorize in the course of a few days. I have almost completed a Tragedy on the subject of the Sicilian Vespers, but am undecided whether to offer it for the Theatre or for publication. My friends advise the former, but, if I could dispose of the copyright to my satisfaction, I think I should prefer the latter. If you will favour me with your advice on the subject, I shall feel much obliged. We have been in a state of great anxiety and alarm for some time past, on account of my brother, Colonel Browne, of whose imminent danger you have doubtless heard. His recovery from the numerous wounds he received in struggling with the cowardly Bravos who attacked him in Dublin, has been very slow, but I trust in the course of the ensuing month he will certainly return to England.

Very truly yours, F. Hemans .

Among the would-be poets was a young Quaker gentleman of Stockton-on-Tees who sent Mr. Murray a batch of poems. The publisher wrote an answer to his letter, which fell into the hands of the poet’s father, of the same name, but without the word “Junr.” The father answered:—

Mr. Proctor to Mr. Murray.

Esteemed Friend,

I feel very much obliged by thy refusing to publish the papers sent thee by my son. I was entirely ignorant of anything of the kind, or should have nipt it in the bud. On receipt of this, please burn the whole that was sent thee, and at thy convenience inform me that it has been done. With thanks for thy highly commendable care,

I am respectfully, thy friend, John Proctor .

The Rev. Francis Hodgson, the friend and correspondent of Lord Byron, published a poem entitled ‘The Friends,’ which was favourably noticed by the reviewers, but was soon forgotten. Hodgson afterwards said it should have been called ‘Foes’ instead of ‘Friends.’ In a letter to Murray (30th May, 1818), he wrote:—

“They have come late into the world, but with this you have nothing to do, and I (if possible) still less. In proportion to the slow arrival of a guest at a fashionable party, he should be loudly announced by the people at the stair-head. In plain English, every exertion will be necessary to prevent this last comer from dropping dead from the press.”

Few of the poems when published reached a second edition, and not unfrequently the unsuccessful poets blamed their publisher rather than themselves for the failure of their works.

Even Sharon Turner, Murray’s solicitor, wrote to him about the publication of his poems, which he had written “to idle away the evenings as well as he could.” Murray answered his letter:

John Murray to Mr. Sharon Turner.

17th November, 1817.

I do not think it would be creditable to your name, or advantageous to your more important works, that the present one should proceed from a different publisher. Many might fancy that Longman had declined it. Longman might suspect me of interference; and thus, in the uncertainty of acting with propriety myself, I should have little hope of giving satisfaction to you. I therefore refer the matter to your own feelings and consideration. It has afforded me great pleasure to learn frequently of late that you are so much better. I hope that during the winter, if we have any, to send you many amusing books to shorten the tediousness of time, and charm away your indisposition. Mrs. Murray is still up and well, and desires me to send her best compliments to you and Mrs. Turner.

Ever yours faithfully, J. Murray .

Mr. Turner thanked Mr. Murray for his letter, and said that if he proceeded with his intentions he would adopt his advice. “I have always found Longman very kind and honourable, but I will not offer him now what you think it right to decline.”

Sir John Dillon sent Mr. Murray ‘The Chieftain’s Daughter.’ He wished him to publish it, and to attend its performance when represented on the stage. Murray sent the drama to Mr. Gifford, who decided against it.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. Jan. 1st., 1818.

“I have got through three acts of the play, and do not think it necessary to travel further. It is very smooth, very pretty, very tame, very improbable, and very childish. I will engage to write you three such tragedies faster than a common letter. But we have audiences more silly than the silliest writer, and this perhaps may suit them. This is the first day of the year. I wish it may be a happy one to you.”—W. G.

Mr. Murray continued his kindness to literary men, no matter what their political opinions might be. The following note affords an illustration of this:—

Mr. James Mill to John Murray. 1, Queen’s Square, Westminster, July 25th, 1817.

“Mr. Mill presents his compliments to Mr. Murray, and begs he will accept his cordial thanks for the loan of the Sanscrit Algebra. Mr. Mill is also desirous of expressing his high sense of the liberality of Mr. Murray in offering to favour him with the sight of any book which he publishes; an offer which, on the scale of Mr. Murray’s transactions, is no small indulgence to a man of letters, and an indulgence of which Mr. Mill will often very gratefully avail himself.”

M. de Sismondi also wrote, acknowledging the receipt of several books which Mr. Murray had been kind enough to send him; and proceeded:—

Mr. J. C. L. de Sismondi to John Murray.

Geneva, 28th July, 1817.

Even were I to suppose some design to gain me over to the high-Tory principles which seem to pervade them all, I should be grateful for the attempt, though perhaps further than ever from surrendering, or from putting in my calendar such a saint as the Duchess of Angoulême. It is in a system every way opposite that I have finished my history [‘Républiques Italiennes’], and am ready to print the five last volumes, from xii. to xvi. I had no agreement with my bookseller at Paris; but from the complete downfall of freedom on the continent, I begin to doubt whether such a book as mine, under the protection of its enormous bulk, will be allowed in France, though there would be no suspicion in a country which preserved even a shade of liberty. I had once made you a proposal for printing the preceding volumes in England. You thought then that it would be impossible to vie with continental booksellers. Now it may very well be that the Holy Alliance would grant you a kind of exclusive privilege by prohibition for which I shall not be in the least disposed to thank them. However, it would change entirely the condition of the English bookseller who should take my work. An extensive sale in England, and a probable smuggling over, though not to a great extent, on the continent, would be the necessary consequences of the suspicions of the police. If that alteration in the case should change your mind, and if a price of £300 per volume of about thirty sheets, or £1500 for the whole, would be agreed to, I should go over to England in about three months, to survey and correct the print. I would be very thankful for a ready answer to that proposal, which must have great influence on my other determinations. Believe me to be, with high gratitude and esteem,

Your most obedient humble Servant, J. C. L. De Sismondi .

Mr. Murray, however, did not agree to this proposal to publish Sismondi’s ‘History of the Italian Republics,’ and to smuggle the volumes surreptitiously into France.

Mr. Murray kept up his pleasant correspondence with Mrs. Graham, then living at Broughty Ferry on the Tay. She had woven a Scotch plaid for Mr. Murray’s use during the approaching winter season, and announced its completion in the following pleasant letter:—

Mrs. Graham to John Murray.

Broughty Ferry, 2nd November, 1817. My dear Sir,

At length the plaid is woven and packed up, and only waits a fair wind to sail with my two brothers and sister to you. I hope you will like it as well as mine. I like it better, as it is both finer and softer. I also send Mr. Foscolo’s little book, which I had unintentionally purloined, and a book of Sir J. Mackintosh’s, which you may give him when you have an opportunity. If the five brace of grouse I send you arrive in good order, will you send one brace to him with the parcel, as I have forgotten his address; and I will send Mrs. Murray ptarmigan in about three weeks to make up for it.

I wish you would write me some news, for I have none here; and, to mend matters, I caught so bad a cold at Stormont, where I was paying a visit some weeks ago, that I have never been able to stir out of the house since, and therefore can’t work in the garden, or walk, or sail, or do anything agreeable out of doors—not even to go and see the famous attack made upon the whales by the inhabitants of Dundee, which was, I am told, ludicrous beyond the powers of description. We saw the shoal of fish go up the river the day before, but little thought they were to afford such sport. Hector McIntyre’s combat with the Sealgh was nothing to that of a currier and a finner in the harbour. The currier ran up to his middle into the water with a dressing-knife, and manfully plunged it up to the hilt in the side of the finner. The whale turned sharp on the currier, and turned him head over heels in the water, but bearing off the knife of the half-drowning currier. Meanwhile a sailor leaped on the enraged animal’s back, and swam Arion-like round the harbour, holding by the back fin. I am half sorry to relate that the poor fish was at last mastered. The oil will probably illuminate the currier’s kitchen this very night. . . .

I am promised one of the first copies of ‘Rob Roy.’ What a mine the author possesses! I would rather have it than any of those in Peru. W. Scott, a short time ago, notified a visit to Sir James Colquhoun, near Loch Lomond. Sir James imagined that it must be for the purpose of obtaining certain MSS. which are in his family relative to ‘Rob Roy,’ and sent word that his house was full of plasterers and painters, and that he could receive nobody. W. S. therefore resolved to take him by surprise, and accordingly went unawares to the house, but when Sir James heard there was a gentleman at the front door he went out at the back, and so escaped, and also escaped contributing to the novel.*

Pray what is the 4th Canto of ‘Childe Harold’ doing? and where is Lord Byron? You know my admiration for his works, and my thoughts for the best, the very best, of the man. What is your friend the Laureate doing? Is he returned from the Continent? I have seen but one new book—a Danish account of the north of Africa, interesting and curious. Have any of your geographers got hold of it? It is straight from the Baltic, having been commissioned by my good friend, Dr. Ross, who has just received some chests full of German books, which he threatens me with a reading of. . . . My love to Mrs. Murray and the children, especially little Maria, and believe me ever,

Very truly and gratefully yours, M. Graham .

* See allusion in Lady Abercorn’s letter, p. 65.

CHAPTER XXI. MR. SOUTHEY AND THE ‘QUARTERLY.’

We must now return to the Quarterly Review, to which, as it had been Mr. Murray’s first love, he continued faithful to the end. In spite of Mr. Gifford’s failing health and the incurable irregularity with which he prepared each number for publication, the circulation reached 12,000 in 1817, and 14,000 a few months later.

Southey was at this time one of the most constant and prolific contributors. “The most profitable line of composition is reviewing,” he wrote to J. T. Coleridge. . . . “I have [not yet received so much for the ‘History of the Brazils’ (in three volumes) as for a single article in the Quarterly.” To help Southey in this unfortunate work, Bishop Heber afterwards wrote a laudatory article in the Review. Mr. Murray, always willing to render assistance, offered Southey £500 a volume for a series of English Biographies, six in number, which he might collect from the Lives he had written for the Quarterly; but Southey was busy with his ‘Book of the Church,’ and did not accept the offer. He afterwards wrote an article on Cromwell for the Quarterly, but he did not, as Murray proposed, expand it into a regular biography.

The payments for his contributions were the principal source of his income. “Literature,” said Robinson, “is now Southey’s trade; he is a manufacturer, and his study is his workshop—a very beautiful one, certainly. . . . His time is his wealth; and I shall therefore scrupulously abstain from stealing any portion of it.”*

By dint of experience, he was able to collect his information and write out his articles with great rapidity; and he could, without difficulty, have filled a whole number from his own head and pen alone. It was said of him that he was able to “tear the heart out of a book;” glancing down each page to see whether it contained anything that he was likely to make use of, he made certain notes which he slipped in as marks, and in the course of a few hours, with the help of his remarkable memory, he obtained enough materials to form the subject of an interesting paper. It was not merely a review with extracts, but a complete analysis, giving the gist of the book under consideration. He could, moreover, infuse a little sarcasm too. Rogers said of him: “The Laureate has two inkstands always at hand; the one is filled with gall, and the other with milk.”

He was at times, as has already been said, the despair of Gifford, who was occasionally under the necessity of abridging his articles, or, as Southey called it, “mutilating” them, at which the Laureate was usually very sore. No. 32 contained no fewer than three by him. When Southey’s article on ‘Parliamentary Reform’ came out in the previous number, it was immediately surmised that he was the author, and the Whigs and Radicals attacked him furiously. Hazlitt, who detested him, was the most severe, and he contrasted Southey’s article in the Quarterly† with his ‘Wat Tyler.’ Some of Southey’s enemies caused ‘Wat Tyler’ to be reprinted, on which Southey applied for an

* H. C. Robinson’s ‘Diary, Reminiscences,’ &c., ii. 22.

† Hazlitt’s ‘Political Essays, with Sketches of Public Characters, 1819,’ pp. 190-240.

injunction against its re-publication. The circumstances of this early literary indiscretion have already been related in a letter from Murray to Lord Byron.* On the appearance of the article in the Quarterly, Mr. William Smith, M.P., made an attack on Southey in the House of Commons, to which Southey replied in a ‘Letter to Mr. Smith,’ published by Murray in 1817. It is unnecessary to refer to the particulars of the case; but what Mr. Murray thought of the transaction may be learned from the following passage of a letter to Mr. Blackwood.

John Murray to Mr. Blackwood. Feb. 27th, 1817.

“The Whigs are in a most infernal fury at our article on Reform. But the upshot is an abuse, not of the article, which is too masterly for them, but of the author, that it is a shame that he should write such an article who once thought so differently. I suppose I have had thirty applications to know the author (Southey), and half as many to print it separately, forsooth. ... I will send you down in post-mail parcel a copy of ‘Wat Tyler.’ It was written many years ago by Southey, and given to Ridgway to assist to pay his expenses when in prison. It was never printed, and was thought so little of that the MS. was never demanded. Some one has had the baseness to print it at this time. There is an injunction against it, and I give you this as a curiosity.”

There is an allusion in the foregoing letter to a difficulty which has always beset, and still besets, the owner of the Quarterly Review, in the constant applications which are made by well-meaning persons when any article of particular interest appears, to republish it at a low price, so that it may be spread abroad throughout the kingdom. To such correspondents Mr. Murray was not so accommodating.

* See vol. i. p. 383.

John Murray to Mr. W. Blackwood. Feb. 22nd, 1817.

“What! am I to give away the result of the sweat of ten years? These good people, who never even sprinkled with water the root of my tree, would now thoughtlessly pluck all my plums and pears, the results of my long labours. Would not the least reflection teach them that they ought (two or three dozen of them) to buy a quantity of my Review, and thus encourage the publisher? I am just now answering another of these cost-me-nothing acts of philanthropy, received from my friend William Kerr of your Post-office. While rearing this machine, has it not nearly fallen and overwhelmed me? and did any of these men come to my help? ‘Pray, my Lord,’ said Johnson to Chesterfield, ‘is not a patron one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help?’”

Southey was a very keen politician, and did not confine his polemics to the pages of the Quarterly.

Mr. Southey to John Murray.

Keswick, July 21st, 1818. My dear Sir,

I have made good way in a letter to Brougham in consequence of a false and slanderous attack which he made upon me from the hustings,—with the amicable intention, I believe, of setting my neighbours upon stoning me,—this being the fashion with the rabble of his party. As I was not present to give him the lie in the face of the multitude (as assuredly I would have done), I have given him such a castigation as such a thorough-paced scoundrel deserves—a William Smithiad. But I should hardly have taken the trouble for mere personal motives if I had not hoped to do some good by a full and complete exposure of his system of slander.

For this purpose in the body of the letter I want to give in order a clear, succinct and strong statement of all the calumnies in the House of Commons of which he has been convicted, with the documents in the Appendix (between ourselves this is a suggestion of Croker’s). Send me, therefore, the Debates of the last Parliament, from the time Brougham came in for Winchelsea—I forget whether in 1814, ’15, or ’16. The first part I shall very shortly send you through Bedford’s hands, and you will let Pople print it. By-the-bye, this printer has requested me to speak a good word for him to you, and if in the plenitude of your power you could sometimes employ him, you would confer a favour upon me, serving a very deserving man.

Jeffery and Sir E. K. come in for some tremendous blows in this letter. I expect also to have a letter from Wordsworth to append to it, addressed to myself. He was included in the attack.

You can have no conception of the Devilish spirit which Brougham has raised and left behind him in Westmorland. It has shocked many of his own party.

You want some German in the =Review, and I can help you to some. There is a neighbour of mine perfectly competent to give you an able and philosophical criticism upon Schiller’s works, if you will send the collected edition to Thomas De Quincey, Esquire, Grasmere, near Ambleside. I have been talking to him this day upon the subject.* He is a man of singular acuteness and ability.

‘Evelyn’s Memoirs’ would assist in furnishing materials for an essay of great pith and moment upon the reign of Charles II. and the spirit of that age. But my next paper must be ‘The New Churches and the Catacombs,’ easily and naturally connected.

There is a book upon Nonconformity lying for me at your house, written by Conder, the bookseller. Let it come in the next parcel,—I shall have occasion to touch upon it in my Life of Wesley.

What if I were to make a Life of Marlborough for the Review from Coxe’s book?

Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours most truly, Robert Southey .

I shall not fail in the copyright question.

* De Quincey never contributed to the Quarterly.

Mr. Croker contributed to No. 32 a review of Miss Plumptre’s ‘Residence in Ireland.’ Gifford had struck out some of the sentences; but Croker was not so indignant as Southey would have been. He merely wrote to Murray: “I regret that Gifford struck out the beastly quotation from Miss Plumptre’s book. But I am one of those who never complain (on personal grounds) of the despotism of the Editor, which I think it absolutely necessary to maintain.”

No. 33 contained an article on Hazlitt’s ‘Round Table,’ by Mr. Russell. Hazlitt attributed the article to Gifford, and attacked him, in a violent pamphlet, as an “ultra-crepidarian critic.” Gifford took no notice of such attacks, because he held that secrecy was necessary in conducting a Review, and shortly before his death, directed his executor, Dr. Ireland, Dean of Westminster, to destroy all his confidential letters and papers, especially those relating to the Quarterly. It was at times considered so necessary to keep the names of the principal contributors secret, that no regular record of them was kept. Hence the difficulty we have had in tracing the authorship of the several articles; in many cases it has been ascertained from letters addressed to Mr. Murray himself, or to his principal correspondents.

Mr. John Barrow took up the subject of Geography in the Quarterly, and the public was greatly indebted to him for the increasingly extended knowledge, not only of the colonies and dominions subject to England, but of all other parts of the globe. In his ‘Autobiography,’ he gives an interesting account of his connection with the Quarterly. After mentioning his articles on geographical subjects, he proceeds to say:—

“I had a letter from Murray to say that, in consequence of a certain article, the sale of the Review had very much increased. This article was published in the year 1817-18, and the subject of it was an inquiry into the nature and extent of the Polar Sea, and the proofs of a communication through it between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. . . . When it was described and delineated as a large and nearly circular basin, it was treated in another Review as a joke. That article, however,* and the extraordinary facts therein stated, not only produced Murray’s avowal of its successful results, but gave rise also to the recent Arctic voyages, by sea and land, that have added so largely to the geography and scientific discoveries made in these regions by a class of officers whose names will ever be remembered in the annals of the British Navy. I had the curiosity to ask Mr. Murray what was really the increase of the number of copies sold in consequence, as he said, of the above-mentioned article; and it appears, by the register which is kept, that the sale of each of the Nos. 33, 34, and 35 was 12,000; No. 36 (next after that containing the article in question) was 13,000, and this number was continued to No. 41, when it fell back to something less than it had been; in consequence it was pretty well ascertained, of two or three new Reviews having started up.”

When Mr. Murray proposed to publish Barrow’s articles on Polar Explorations, which had excited so much interest, in the form of a volume, he offered what Mr. Barrow considered an absurdly large price for the copyright, and received the following reply:—

Mr. Barrow to John Murray.

I will not, if I can help it, contribute to your ruin by your excessive liberality, and cannot therefore consent to a compliance with your offer. Whether the trifle will sell or not, I am no judge; it will depend greatly on the feeling or the whim of the public; but whether it does or not, it is entirely at your service; and to relieve you from any idea of an obligation, if it should be fortunate enough to require a second edition, I will then bargain with you for the copyright. You must alter the outside label, which

* Quarterly Review, vol. xviii., No. 35.

is a fallacy, and make it ‘Voyages into the Arctic Regions,’ or, if you prefer it, into the Polar Regions; and I think you should not go above 12s. for the price, for as that point is just at this moment being discussed in the papers, your friend of the Times will be most ready to seize hold of it.

I am, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours, John Barrow .

I shall want about a couple of dozen copies to give away.

As Barrow would take nothing for the first edition of his book, Murray sent him a handsome present, to which Barrow replied:—

Mr. Barrow to John Murray.

“I neither know how to accept nor refuse, much less how to thank you sufficiently for your magnificent present, which is the more to be appreciated as I had intended to treat myself with a copy of so valuable and necessary a library book. I shall never be out of your debt . . . .”

In Number 36 Mr. Cohen (afterwards Sir F. Palgrave) had an article on ‘Ancient and Modern Greenland.’ This was the subject of much correspondence between Gifford and Murray. Gifford, on sending him the revise of the article, wrote:—

Mr. W. Gifford to John Murray.

I wish you could induce our friend to make a few alterations. . . . Scarcely anything is said about the agriculture of Greenland. . . . Then what a pity it is that no notice is taken of the sun. This is characteristic; and here is a verse:— “The people, whose unclouded day Ends in a joyless half-year’s night, Gaze wistful on the setting ray That glitters on Spitzbergen’s height.” These things might be easily introduced by a preliminary line or two. But the translation wants pace, and is very inferior to the language of the article. Mr. Cohen might, if it be thought worth while, look at it with his pencil in his hand. There is something interesting in the good priest’s journey, but it should be compressed. I was much struck by the bridge of ice, and wonder that our friend was not reminded by it of the bridge of the Estala. If you think nothing of what I have hinted, then the revise may go to press. I think ‘Thorgill’ long, but I can shorten it no more. There is really no one for whom I would labour with such interest as for our friend. His style is racy and vivid, and I think among the very best we ever had. What he wants is selection. All things ought not to be detailed at equal length, and it is woeful work to toil on what is not cared for. With all this, I cannot help thinking that Cohen will rise to distinction as a writer by practice, and condescending somewhat more than he does at present to the comparative ignorance of his readers. . . . I scrawl this with eyes half closed, and you may add, and brains too.

Ever yours, W. G.

It is probable that the article in the same Number (36) on the ‘Ecclesiastical Computation of Easter,’ was written by Sir Alexander Boswell, son of James Boswell, author of the ‘Life of Johnson.’ He was an antiquary and an author in communication with Mr. Murray. He was invited to dine at Albemarle Street in July 1817, and in answer to Murray’s letter wrote:—

Sir Alexander Boswell to John Murray.

Dear Sir,

I shall wait upon you with much pleasure on Friday, and certainly you offer me an inducement which would have compensated for a disagreeable host. But although it is no doubt very gratifying to me to meet with one whose poems I have so highly appreciated [Campbell], I do not choose you to put it upon such grounds alone that I am to be your guest. I have always had reason to be sensible of your polite attention, and shall be happy when you afford me an opportunity of marking my recollection of it.

Your most obedient Servant, Alexander Boswell.*

Though Southey had only a single article in No. 36, that on the Poor Laws, he expressed his approval (an unusual thing) of the whole number.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“Southey is quite pleased with the whole of our number, which he thinks a most amazing one. This was praise indeed from Southey, and never, I think, was so given to us before. He promises ‘Evelyn’ almost immediately. I shall see you on Wednesday, unless the patriots of Guildhall knock me on the head to-morrow; and then we will finally settle our mode of commencing this number.”

Southey was as good as his word. His ‘Evelyn’s Memoirs’ commenced the next number of the Quarterly, though Gifford was not quite satisfied with it, and wrote to Murray (August 1818):—

“A great card was lost when Southey was set upon Evelyn, in preference to Dr. W[hitaker], whom I regard as the best and most truthful painter of character in the country. . . . We have not a more valuable correspondent.”

It will be remembered that Scott also had expressed a desire to review this book.

The last article in No. 38 excited a great deal of interest. It was that entitled ‘Mr. Brougham—Education Committee.’ It was written in the first place by the Rev. Professor

* Sir Alexander Boswell was killed in a duel by Mr. Stuart of Dunearn, in 1822. Stuart immediately fled to America, and afterwards published an account of his visit in his well known ‘Three Years in North America.’

Monk, who no doubt wrote the substance of the article. At the same time, the pungent wit, the Attic salt, were inserted by Gifford, on the prompting of Canning and Croker. Of course the connection of Canning with the article was kept a profound secret, and the editor was prevented from avowing it. His task was, with the help of his other contributors, to render effective a paper in itself good, but prosy; and, at the same time, to prevent the original author himself from resenting the changes made in his paper.*

That the article was carefully pondered over, corrected, and amended by Croker and Canning, appears from the following letter from Croker to Murray, dated Munster House:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

I wrote to you and our friend from Gloster Lodge [Canning’s residence], I hope with some success, though I rather fear Mr. G[ifford]’s illness may render him unwilling to have any more changes made. I would not press it, if I did not in my conscience believe that the character and efficacy of the Review is concerned, vitally concerned, in the matter. . . . The Speaker longs to see the Review. Could you send him a number to-night? You might request him not to show it till Monday; I will get back the copy from him.

Murray paid Professor Monk handsomely for his “doctored” article, and received the following acknowledgment.

Professor Monk to John Murray. Feb. 4th, 1819.

“I am ashamed of not having sooner acknowledged your obliging note, and the very handsome and indeed magnificent inclosure with which you are pleased to recompense

* How he did this is well shown in the correspondence published by Bishop Monk’s son in the Athenæum of March 20th, 1875, which, so far from confuting the time-honoured tradition, seems to confirm it.

my attempts to serve the Review. The opinion expressed both by you and Mr. Gifford of the merits of this attempt is far beyond what I feel myself entitled to.”

The piles of the Quarterly laid out on the day of publication, before being issued to the booksellers, was a remarkable sight. Mr. W. B. Cooke, the engraver, who had done much work for Mr. Murray, wrote to him on the 24th December, 1818:—

“When you have the twelve thousand Quarterly Reviews printed and heaped up at Albemarle Street, I shall be glad to bring some friends to have a look at such a prodigy of press work—if Mr. Stewart will drop me a line.”

Amongst other books, Murray consulted Gifford about Sheil’s ‘Evadne.’ But he did not like it; he thought the first and last acts claptrap. “The play,” he said, “is largely indebted to Shirley’s ‘Traitor,’ but falls far short of it. Yet this is far the best thing that Sheil has done. It is more free, more spirited, and more poetical. What this young man wants is taste and judgment. I really think that he is likely to succeed at last.”

‘Evadne’ appeared in 1820, and it was greatly helped by Miss O’Neil’s acting, but it eventually failed. Miss O’Neil was a staunch supporter of her countryman, who subsequently wrote to Murray:—

Mr. Sheil to John Murray.

“The ‘Apostate’ is to be shortly acted in Dublin, which will, of course, increase the sale. Miss O’Neil assured me that she would act it everywhere in the country, so that I entertain little doubt that you will not ultimately prove a loser by your great liberality to me. The success of my play, instead of being any obstruction to me in my profession, has been eminently useful. I expect a considerable increase of professional employment. With regular and severe study, however, I hope to be able to produce a tragedy which shall surpass the ‘Apostate,’ and, at the same time, not neglect my more permanently useful pursuits. Will you be kind enough to present my compliments to Mrs. Murray and to Mrs. Graham, to whom I am so much indebted for making me known to Sir James Mackintosh, whose advice was at once so judicious and so kind?”

Yours, &c., R. L. Sheil .

Mr. Murray was constantly sending presents to his friend and editor:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“I am really ashamed of your goodness—but what a poor creature am I? When I saw you, I thought myself much better than I had been at Ryde; in less than three hours I was labouring with a violent cough and fever—how brought on I cannot even guess. Last night, and all yesterday, I was very ill indeed, and could not keep my head from the pillow. To-day I feel a good deal relieved. . . . This is the first word that I have been able to write since we parted.

June 18th, 1819.

“The presentation of your valuable volume [a complete edition of Shakespeare] ought to satisfy your generosity, and I accept it with the sincerest pleasure and thankfulness; but I must not suffer your liberality to be abused. Consider, my dear friend, for what purpose I should enrich my library at the expense of such kindness. As old Welbjee once said to Hoppner, ‘Vat sold I save for? I have no posteriori.’ The meaning of all this gabble is, that I will accept a lease of your Shakespeare—probably a life interest in him, then to revert to the original landlord.”

Shrewd and cautious adviser as he was, even Barrow was liable to mistakes, as, for instance, when he wrote his review of Birkbeck’s ‘Notes on America’ (Q. R. No. 37), on receiving the MS. of which Gifford wrote to Murray:—

“I am glad you sent Birkbeck, he appears to be the most dangerous man that ever wrote from America. Our friend had missed his character, and I have nearly rewritten the article.”

Another name which appears among the Quarterly reviewers for the first time in 1819 is that of Ugo Foscolo, whose article on ‘The Poems of the Italians’ occupied the place of honour in No. 42; but as the career of this strange man is fully dealt with in a subsequent chapter, we will only allude to him here.

Mr. Gifford was under the impression that the Quarterly Review did not receive sufficient support from the existing Government. George III. died on the 29th of January, 1820, and his son George IV. reigned in his stead. Lord Liverpool was then in power, and a plot was concocted by Thistlewood and his comrades for assassinating the Ministers, seizing the Bank of England, and establishing a provisional government. The number of the Quarterly (44) which was about to appear contained two articles by Robert Grant—one a ‘Letter to the Prince Regent;’ the other on ‘The State of Public Affairs,’ which Mr. Gifford thought of great value.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“This article will make a great impression. Three such magnificent speeches* have never been placed at the head of one before. The extracts are uncommonly fine, and in one place I must make an addition; but it will be the most striking part of Mr. Canning’s speech, which, as now given, reads rather abrupt.

* * * * *

“I have no patience with these Cabinet people. When it is too late they rub their eyes and begin to see that the Review might be of the ‘utmost importance’ to them, but they never condescend to write a thought on it when there is both time and an earnest will to serve them (i.e. the country), and nothing wanting but the means which they

* Mr. Plunket’s and Mr. Canning’s in the House of Commons, Nov. 23 and 24, 1819, and Lord Grenville’s in the House of Lords, Nov. 30.

are called on to supply. How often has this been urged! Yet who of them procures us a single line?

“They are happy to leave all to chance, and have neither the courage nor—but I am tired of this. Mr. Croker is the only link that unites us at all with the Ministers, and the service he has done them by his various papers is incalculable; but he cannot do everything, and it is certain that, to meet the present state of the country, an elaborate article is requisite.

“Ever yours, “W. G.”

In No. 46 was an article by D’Israeli on ‘Spence’s ‘Anecdotes of Books and Men.’

Mr. D’Israeli to John Murray.

October, 1820. Dear Murray,

I received your letter at Weston Green, and we have just returned home; they lamenting the loss of green fields, and I glad to get again into the woods and underwoods of my library. Your letter enclosed a draft of £50, which by the appearance comes from the Q. R. I think it extremely handsome, and begin to fear the article does not deserve it. However, be that as it may, the remuneration which the Review is now able to afford—the extraordinary skill and felicity of the Editor, supported by the large spirit of the Proprietor, will, be assured, command the richest talents in the literary world. It is worth sacrificing time and making an effort, when a writer secures both readers and profit.

Most truly yours, I. D’I.

The difficulties of editors are almost as proverbial as the variety of opinions, and both facts are somewhat amusingly illustrated by the two following opinions of one number of the Quarterly Review written by contributors to its pages. Mr. Francis Cohen writes (21st December, 1821):—

“I have just dashed through the Review, and am delighted with it—particularly with my article [’Astrology and Alchemy’]: however, that is neither here nor there. . . . Mind, you must keep the doing of the ‘Paston Letters’ for me. If you disappoint me, I shall never forgive you.”

On the other hand, Mr. Croker had his fling at the same number, which contained an article of his own on the French Revolution.

Mr. Croker to Mr. Murray.

December 22nd, 1821. Dear Murray,

I am happy to tell you that your Review is abominably bad—happy for your sake, because, as you will, I dare say, sell 12,000, it only shows that you have an estate which produces wholly independent of its culture. All that ridiculous importance given to Dupin,* a wretched écrivas-seur, and that affectation of naval statistics, I think very unsuitable. Your ‘Alchemy’† is appropriate enough, great elaboration and pomp of work ending in smoke and dross. If Dalzell’s ‘Lectures’‡ are as obscure and as dull as your commentary, they were not worth reviewing, no more than the commentary is worth reading. There is a pretension of smartness about your pedant which reminds one of Vadices in the ‘Femmes Galantes.’ The article on Hazlitt§ is good, and that on the Scotch novels‖ excellent. All the rest is what the shipowners call dunnage. In short, my dear Murray, bless your stars you have now sounded the bass string of humility, and you may be assured that your next number will be better than the last, and so good-bye.

Yours, J. W. Croker .

In May 1821, Gifford wrote to Murray: “I am very far from being well, but by taking James’s powder last night, I hope I have checked this fever.” He went to Ramsgate in July, and enjoyed the journey.

* ‘On the Navy of England and France,’ reviewed by Barrow.

† ‘Astrology and Alchemy.’ By Francis Cohen.

‡ ‘On the Ancient Greeks,’ reviewed by T. Mitchell.

§ By Col. Matthews. ‖ By Nassau Senior.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“The only accident which befell us, lighted upon poor Bid, who, in exhibiting her agility on the coach-box, cut an awkward caper, and tumbled over. I thought, as the man in the play says, that both the damsels would have swounded; however, she broke no bones, and is now as well as ever. . . . I seem to breathe freer already. ’Twas time to leave Town for I suffered more in the last week than I liked to tell, and could not have sat up much longer. A day or two to luxurious indolence, and then to work. I got my papers this morning, but pray buy, beg, borrow, or steal a John Bull for me, or I shall be as ignorant as a beast of the virtues of the Queen [Caroline] and her admirers. Let me have a line from you as often as you have leisure and convenience.”

July 18th, 1821.

“I have received a letter from some pretty Jessica to yourself. The object of sending me this I cannot make out, unless it be kindly to remind me that she is a widow; but I give you to understand that if I marry a widow I am already engaged; but I have some thoughts of waiting a few years for one of Mrs. Eaton’s youngest girls!

* * * *

“What are you dreaming of, my dear friend? If there was ever a time when I thought myself peculiarly obliged by your kindness and attention, it was certainly during the last week. Your letters were my chief source of amusement and information. . . . I am well, and I am not; for my face continues to worry me. The few teeth I have seem taking their leave—I wish they would take a French one; and after so long an acquaintance they do not like to part without pain. I shall pluck out no bone from any wolf’s throat alive hereafter, that I clearly foresee. With this exception I cannot complain, as my breath evidently improves. Ramsgate is still empty and dull; our good weather fled with the pomp of the Coronation. . . . Blessings on the Queen! I see by this morning’s paper that she is determined to make a part of the show. But her day is gone by, and there wanted but this last part of her farce to finish her character with the few respectable people that yet cling to her.”

After the great affair at Westminster had been accomplished, Gifford again wrote to Murray:—

“Your Coronation accounts were excellent. I would have grudged no sum to witness the sight, but ’twas physically impossible for me. All the world joins in calling it the most glorious spectacle that was ever seen.”

Gifford was not much the better for his visit to Ramsgate, for he was during that time confined to the house by bad weather, and affected by pain in his side, which prevented him sitting upright. While in this state, he saw from the papers that he had been drawn for the Militia! “Dismiss all fears,” he wrote to Murray; “if I once get arms in my hands, I shall play the devil with the foe. But what triple-turned asses are those Deputy-Lieutenants!”

Shortly after his arrival in London at the end of August, Mr. Barrow called upon him. “I sat an hour with Gifford the other evening,” he reported to Mr. Murray. “He is pretty well, but breathes short, and I think on the whole is gradually sinking, poor fellow! He is one of those whose place is not easily filled.” Nevertheless, Gifford went on with his work. He called upon the publisher with some of the articles for the next number of the Quarterly, and walked home from Albemarle Street to James Street, Buckingham Gate, a thing he had not done for two years. “The pain in my side,” he wrote to Murray, “still continues, but I can relieve it by resting or lying down. . . . What a magnificent edition of ‘Jonson’ you have sent me! What can I do with so fine a work? Put it in a frame! But there is no stopping your career, as Barrow says.”

Thus the Quarterly went on; Murray usually beating up for new contributors, as well as holding together the former authors. In 1822, he found a new contributor in the Rev. George Gleig, afterwards Chaplain-General to the Forces, who contributed several articles at different times, his first being on Dr. Chalmers and the Poor Laws, in No. 56. During Gifford’s now almost incessant attacks of illness, Mr. Croker took charge of the Review. The following letter embodies some of his ideas as to editing:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

Brighton, March 29th, 1823. Dear Murray,

As I shall not be in Town in time to see you to-morrow, I send you some papers. I return the Poor article* with its additions. Let the author’s amendments be attended to, and let his termination be inserted between his former conclusion and that which I have written. It is a good article, not overdone and yet not dull. I return, to be set up, the article [by Captain Procter] on Southey’s ‘Peninsular War.’ It is very bad—a mere abstracted history of the war itself, and not in the least a review of the book. I have taken pains to remove some part of this error, but you must feel how impossible it is to change the whole frame of such an article. A touch thrown in here and there will give some relief, and the character of a review will be in some small degree preserved. This cursed system of writing dissertations will be the death of us, and if I were to edit another number, I should make a great alteration in that particular. But for this time I must be satisfied with plastering up what I have not time to rebuild. One thing I would do immediately if I were you. I would pay for articles of one sheet as much as for articles of two and three, and, in fact, I would scarcely permit an article to exceed one sheet. I would reserve such extension for matters of great and immediate interest and importance. I am delighted that W.† undertakes one, he will do it well; but remember the necessity of absolute secrecy on this point, and indeed on all others. If you were to publish such names as Cohen and Croker and

* ‘On the Poor Laws,’ by Mr. Gleig.

† Probably Blanco White.

Collinson and Coleridge, the magical we would have little effect, and your Review would be absolutely despised—omne ignotum pro mirifico. I suppose I shall see you about twelve on Tuesday. Could you not get me a gay light article or two? If I am to edit for you, I cannot find time to contribute. Madame Campan’s poem will more than expend my leisure. I came here for a little recreation, and I am all day at the desk as if I were at the Admiralty. This Peninsular article has cost me two days’ hard work, and is, after all, not worth the trouble; but we must have something about it, and it is, I suppose, too late to expect anything better. Mr. Williams’s article on Sir W. Scott is contemptible, and would expose your Review to the ridicule of the whole bar; but it may be made something of, and I like the subject. I had a long and amusing talk with the Chancellor the night before last, on his own and his brother’s judgments; I wish I had time to embody our conversation in an article.

Yours ever, J. W. C.

Southey is very long, but as good as he is long—I have nearly done with him. I write very slowly, and cannot write long. This letter is written at three sittings.

No sooner had Croker got No. 56 of the Review out of his hands than he made a short visit to Paris. On this Mr. Barrow writes to Murray:—

Mr. Barrow to John Murray.

April 2nd, 1823.

Croker has run away to Paris, and left poor Gifford helpless. What will become of the Quarterly? It is very cruel, and I assure you I am exceedingly sorry for it; for I much fear that what with its delay some sharp-witted fellow may take the advantage and start a rival. . . . Poor Gifford told me yesterday that he felt he must give up the Editorship, and that the doctors had ordered him to do so. As far, therefore, as he is concerned, I see no reason why you should not go on, and if, as I hope and trust, he may get a little better, he may then resume his labour on what remains undone.

Gifford did not, however, give in until he could neither revise, correct, nor write more. After the warm weather had set in, he went to Ramsgate as usual. He wrote some very disappointing letters to Murray.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. July, 1823.

“My cough increases daily. We have a July sun and a January wind. . . . I am inclined to think that my case is determining not very slowly towards a consumption. I have done nothing since I came down here, and feel that I can do nothing, which is worse. . . . Do not forget that it is not inclination which I want, but power. Above all, keep your eye steadfastly on the means of filling my place. Great activity will be required, I am sure, on your part; and you must buckle to, and meet all difficulties with firmness. They will but increase by evasion or postponement of them. I am entitled to speak on this head from experience.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Barrow had a letter from Rev. Dr. Buckland, in which he enclosed one from the Provost of Oriel, “all kindness and condescension,” in which he said that Gifford had said nothing to him “of giving in.” “Indeed,” said Barrow in his letter to Murray, “I believe he has no such intention, how much soever he may pretend it to you and me. But this is entre nous.” A few days later, Barrow wrote to Murray saying that he had seen Gifford that morning:—

Mr. Barrow to John Murray. Aug. 18th, 1823.

“I told him to look out for some one to conduct the Review, but he comes to no decision. I told him that you very naturally looked to him for naming a proper person. He replied he had—Nassau Senior—but that you had taken some dislike to him.” I then said, ‘You are now

* This, so far as can be ascertained, was a groundless assumption on Mr. Gifford’s part.

well; go on, and let neither Murray nor you trouble yourselves about a future editor yet; for should you even break down in the midst of a number, I can only repeat that Croker and myself will bring it round, and a second number if necessary, to give him time to look out for and fix upon a proper person, but that the work should not stop.’ I saw he did not like to continue the subject, and we talked of something else.”

Croker also was quite willing to enter into this scheme, and jointly with Barrow to undertake the temporary conduct of the Review. But he was so much occupied by his official business that he could not be depended upon for the continual editing. Here we must for the present break off the account of the Quarterly Review, leaving the close of Mr. Gifford’s career and the appointment of his successor to a subsequent chapter. The young barrister, Mr. J. T. Coleridge, was of much use to him, and assisted him in the editing. “Mr. C. is too long,” Gifford wrote to Murray, “and I am sorry for it. But he is a nice young man, and should be encouraged.”

CHAPTER XXII. HALLAM—BASIL HALL—CRABBE—HOPE—HORACE AND JAMES SMITH.

It was in 1817 that Mr. Hallam applied to Mr. Murray to become the publisher of his ‘View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages;’ but it cannot now be ascertained whether he was originally introduced to the publisher by any one of their common friends. The early negotiations respecting the work—which was immediately accepted, and published in two volumes quarto in 1818—were conducted chiefly by means of personal interviews, and the correspondence of this period is confined to matters of no general interest; but the acquaintance thus formed led to a close friendship, which lasted unbroken till Mr. Murray’s death.

Towards the end of 1817, Mr. Murray received a letter from a new correspondent respecting the publication of his ‘Voyage to the West Coast of Corea and the Loo-choo Islands.’ This was from Captain Basil Hall, son of Sir James Hall of Dunglas, whose work on ‘Gothic Architecture’ Mr. Murray had published some years before. Captain Hall was a popular writer, and kept the public amused as well as instructed by his descriptions of life at sea and on land, in his numerous ‘Fragments of Voyages and Travels.’ He first wrote to Mr. Murray from Portsmouth, immediately on landing from the East. He had unfortunately lost his notes about his interview with Napoleon at St. Helena:—

Captain Basil Hall to John Murray. Nov. 16th, 1817.

“It is a serious annoyance to lose such a document, and I am half tempted to advertise for it. Your note of the 11th gave me very great pleasure indeed, and I have now no more anxiety on the subject. The personal regard which you express towards me is not, I fully trust, thrown away on a man who will trifle with it. As to terms about the book, I will see you upon this subject when I come up—probably on Tuesday morning. I do want some ready money, certainly, to pay off a plaguey debt, but I have a strong desire to keep up some kind of interest in this ‘Cruize’—not, as you may believe, from any avaricious motive, but from a feeling that I could act along with you pleasantly and disinterestedly, and that the purposes of both would be better answered than by our cutting the connection. But you must be the best judge, and, as I have no concealment at any time, I shall not use any ceremony with you on this occasion. My heart is quite broken about the poor Princess!* I cry like a child still any moment over the papers.

“Yours very sincerely, “ Basil Hall .”

A year later he wrote:—

Captain Basil Hall to John Murray. November, 1818.

“I wish you joy of your Three Voyages of Discovery.† Happy ‘Loo-choo,’ to have come a year before! I don’t know how to thank you for your very kind and interesting letter. It gave me exactly the sort of information I valued most, and happened at that moment to be in want of. If you could snatch a spare moment to let me know about this affair of Ellis’s, it would be a great favour.”

* Princess Charlotte, who died on November 6.

† Captain Tuckey’s ‘Voyage to the Congo,’ Dr. Macleod’s ‘Voyage of the Alceste,’ William Mariner’s ‘Voyage to the Tonga Islands.’

Mr. Murray having sent some works to the Marquess of Abercorn—amongst them Mr. (afterwards Sir) Henry Ellis’s ‘Proceedings of Lord Amherst’s Embassy to China,’* which is alluded to in the previous extract—the Marchioness, at her husband’s request, wrote to the publisher as follows:—

Marchioness of Abercorn to John Murray. December 4th, 1817.

“He returns Walpole, as he says since the age of fifteen he has read so much Grecian history and antiquity that he has these last ten years been sick of the subject. He does not like Ellis’s account of ‘The Embassy to China,’† but is pleased with Macleod’s‡ narrative. He bids me tell you to say the best and what is least obnoxious of the [former] book. The composition and the narrative are so thoroughly wretched that he should be ashamed to let it stand in his library. He will be obliged to you to send him Leyden’s ‘Africa.’ Leyden was a friend of his, and desired leave to dedicate to him while he lived.”

* ‘Journal of the Proceedings of the late Embassy to China, comprising a Correct Narrative of the Public Transactions of the Embassy, of the Voyage to and from China, and of the Journey from the Mouth of the Peiho to the Return to Canton.’ By Henry Ellis, Esq., Secretary of the Embassy, and Third Commissioner.

† Ellis seems to have been made very uncomfortable by the publication of his book. It was severely reviewed in the Times, where it was said that the account (then in the press) by Clark Abel, M.D., Principal Medical Officer and Naturalist to the Embassy, would be greatly superior. On this Ellis wrote to Murray (19th October, 1817): “An individual has seldom committed an act so detrimental to his interests as I have done in this unfortunate publication; and I shall be too happy when the lapse of time will allow of my utterly forgetting the occurrence. I am already indifferent to literary criticism, and had almost forgotten Abel’s approaching competition.” The work went through two editions.

‡ ‘Narrative of a Voyage in His Majesty’s late ship Alceste to the Yellow Sea, along the Coast of Corea, and through its numerous hitherto undiscovered Islands to the Island of Lewchew, with an Account of her Shipwreck in the Straits of Gaspar.’ By John Malcolm, surgeon of the Alceste.

Mr. Murray, in his reply, deprecated the severity of the Marquess of Abercorn’s criticism on the work of Sir H. Ellis, who had done the best that he could on a subject of exceeding interest.

John Murray to Lady Abercorn.

“I am now printing Captain Hall’s account (he commanded the Lyra), and I will venture to assure your Ladyship that it is one of the most delightful books I ever read, and it is calculated to heal the wound inflicted by poor Ellis. I believe I desired my people to send you Godwin’s novel, which is execrably bad. But in most cases book readers must balance novelty against disappointment.”

Lady Abercorn having asked Mr. Murray to send her ‘Rob Roy’ and the Fourth Canto of ‘Childe Harold,’ he quietly asked her:—

“Shall I withhold ‘Rob Roy’ and ‘Childe Harold’ from your Ladyship until their merits have been ascertained? Even if an indifferent book, it is something to be amongst the first to say that it is bad. You will be alarmed, I fear, at having provoked so many reasons for sending you dull publications. I would have added more, did I not flatter myself that you are aware that my business is to buy, and publish, and scatter books by the thousand among the retail dealers, and that it is rather as an amusement and a pleasure that I send them to those individuals only whom I know to be lovers of and encouragers of literature; and so I entreat you to send back all those you do not like. I have not received the Fourth Canto. Mr. Hobhouse is to be the bearer of it, and proposes to arrive some time this month. I am printing two short but very clever novels by poor Miss Austen, the author of ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ I send Leyden’s ‘Africa’ for Lord Abercorn, who will be glad to hear that the ‘Life and Posthumous Writings’ will be ready soon.”

The Marchioness, in her answer to the above letter, thanked Mr. Murray for his very entertaining answer to her letter, and said:—

Marchioness of Abercorn to John Murray.

“Lord Abercorn says he thinks your conduct with respect to sending books back that he does not like is particularly liberal. He bids me tell you how very much he likes Mr. Macleod’s book; we had seen some of it in manuscript before it was published. We are very anxious for Hall’s account, and I trust you will send it to us the moment you can get a copy finished.

“No, indeed! you must not (though desirous you may be to punish us for the severity of the criticism on poor Ellis) keep back for a moment ‘Rob Roy’ or the fourth canto of ‘Childe Harold.’ I have heard a good deal from Scotland that makes me continue surmising who is the author of these novels. Our friend Walter paid a visit last summer to a gentleman on the banks of Loch Lomond*—the scene of Rob Roy’s exploits—and was at great pains to learn all the traditions of the country regarding him from the clergyman and old people of the neighbourhood, of which he got a considerable stock. I am very glad to hear of a ‘Life of Leyden.’ He was a very surprising young man, and his death is a great loss to the world. Pray send us Miss Austen’s novels the moment you can. Lord Abercorn thinks them next to W. Scott’s (if they are by W. Scott); it is a great pity that we shall have no more of hers. Who are the Quarterly Reviewers? I hear that Lady Morgan suspects Mr. Croker of having reviewed her ‘France,’ and intends to be revenged, &c.

“Believe me to be yours, with great regard, “ A. J. Abercorn .”

From many communications addressed to Mr. Murray about the beginning of 1818, it appears that he had proposed to start a Monthly Register,† and he set up in

* Cf. allusion in Mrs. Graham’s letter, p. 38.

† The announcement ran thus:—“On the third Saturday in January, 1818, will be published the first number of a New Periodical Journal, the object of which will be to convey to the public a great variety of new, original, and interesting matter; and by a methodical arrangement of all Inventions in the Arts, Discoveries in the Sciences, and Novelties in Literature, to enable the reader to keep pace with

print a specimen copy. Many of his correspondents offered to assist him, amongst others Mr. J. Macculloch, Lord Sheffield, Dr. Polidori, then settled at St. Peter’s, Norwich, Mr. Bulmer of the British Museum, and many other contributors. He sent copies of the specimen number to Mr. Croker and Mr. Thomas Murdoch, both of whom sent him such sweeping condemnations that he proceeded no further with the intended periodical.

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

January 11th, 1818. My Dear Murray,

Our friend Sepping* says, “Nothing is stronger than its weakest part,” and this is as true in book-making as in shipbuilding. I am sorry to say your Register has, in my opinion, a great many weak parts. It is for nobody’s use; it is too popular and trivial for the learned, and too abstruse and plodding for the multitude. The preface is not English, nor yet Scotch or Irish. It must have been written by Lady Morgan. In the body of the volume, there is not one new nor curious article, unless it be Lady Hood’s ‘Tiger Hunt.’ In your Mechanics there is a miserable want of information, and in your Statistics there is a sad superabundance of American hyperbole and dulness mixed together, like the mud and gunpowder which, when a boy, I used to mix together to make a fizz. Your Poetry is so bad that I look upon it as your personal kindness to me that you did not put my lines under that head. Your criticism on Painting begins by calling West’s very pale horse “an extraordinary effort of human genius.” Your criticism on Sculpture begins by applauding before-hand Mr. Wyatt’s impudent cenotaph. Your criticism on the Theatre begins by denouncing the best production of its kind, ‘The Beggar’s Opera.’ Your article on Engraving puts under the head of Italy a stone drawing made in Paris. Your own engraving of the Polar Regions is confused and dirty; and your article on the Polar Seas sets

human knowledge. To be printed uniformly with the Quarterly Review . The price by the year will be £2 2s.”

* A Naval surveyor.

out with the assertion of a fact of which I was profoundly ignorant, namely, that the Physical Constitution of the Globe is subject to constant changes and revolution. Of constant changes I never heard, except in one of Congreve’s plays, in which the fair sex is accused of constant inconstancy; but suppose that for constant you read frequent. I should wish you, for my own particular information, to add in a note a few instances of the Physical Changes in the Constitution of the Globe, which have occurred since the year 1781, in which I happened to be born. I know of none, and I should be sorry to go out of the world ignorant of what has passed in my own time. You send me your proof “for my boldest criticism.” I have hurried over rather than read through the pages, and I give you honestly, and as plainly as an infamous pen (the same, I presume, which drew your polar chart) will permit, my hasty impression. If you will call here to-morrow between twelve and one, I will talk with you on the subject.

Yours, J. W. C.

The letter from Thomas Murdoch was equally severe. He observed:—

Mr. T. Murdoch to John Murray.

“I return the Journal, but I cannot regret that it is a still-born bantling. Had it come into the world alone, it has such incurable constitutional defects as must have hurried it to an early grave, after occasioning an infinity of trouble and sorrow to its parents and relations. ‘Not Barrow’s prose, nor Croker’s verses, Could save it from that worst of curses, The curse (unread, unsold, each number) Of being left your shelves to cumber.’

“Yet there are many good articles—nay, some that are excellent in it; but there is, even in this first number, a portion of ‘such reading as is never read’—heavy rubbish, which would soon overcome the buoyancy of the better materials, and sink the journal down to the level of a common gossipy magazine. . . . The admirable article on the ‘Polar Ice’ ought to be published in some publication whose character is respectable, and whose circulation is extensive; such a publication is the Quarterly Review. . . . There is so much good sense and good feeling in the ‘Vision of Royalty,’ that it might also be preserved in the same work, and I should lament to see it go to the ‘tomb of all the Capulets,’ amongst old musty magazines or old catchpenny pamphlets.”

After a good deal more satire on the proposed monthly, Murdoch concludes: “I have written—read who can.” The project was eventually abandoned. Murray entered into the arrangement, already described, with Blackwood, of the Edinburgh Magazine. The article on the “Polar Ice” was inserted in the Quarterly.

Murray’s faithful friend Mr. Isaac D’Israeli had now finished his ‘Literary Character, illustrated by the History of Men of Genius.’ Shortly after the publication of the work, in August 1818, he went to Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire, and remained there for about three months.

Mr. D’Israeli to John Murray.

August 4th, 1818. Dear Murray,

Although we are agreeably enough buried alive at this place, perhaps you may expect me to give some signs of life. We are, it is said, not above twenty-three miles from London, but, to all intents and purposes, if you add one or two hundred more, you will be nearer the fact. My hairdresser makes a circuit of eight miles every day to smooth my chin, and sometimes we are in danger of wanting a dinner. It was with your usual kindness that you sent us the ‘Heart of Midlothian,’ which we return with our best thanks. All that concerns the Deans family, David and Jeanie, is the masterly production of the same genius, and I like the broad and natural humour of many of the characters. Character-painting is his forte, and he is both pathetic and humorous. With all these excellences there is too much alloy of modern romance-writing in the fourth volume, where the incidents are heaped together with little more ability than in Lane’s circulators. But the first of our novel-writers likes to have make-weights, and must have, for so many thousand pounds.

Mr. Stewart [Mr. Murray’s clerk] has been so attentive as to send me down the Observer, without which I should scarcely know that such a place as the Metropolis existed. We have here most elegant pleasure-grounds, with a good imitation of Lord Grenville’s Dropmore, which is not above two miles and a half from us, and our out-gardens and orchards; but, in consequence of the heavens refusing us a drop of water for three months, our two cows will give us no butter, and our vegetable gardens will not furnish us with a meal. So that the country has its disappointments as well as the town. . . .

Ever yours, I. D’Israeli .

P.S.—The most remarkable thing here is Mr. Penn’s house at Stoke. It has an air of magnificence in its architectural appearance, its library, and its ornamental grounds. He has raised a fine monument to the poet Gray, with a very fortunate inscription, for it stands in the midst of the scenery which is identified with his poetry. Gray resided at Stoke, and the churchyard, in the midst of Mr. Penn’s grounds, is the one which inspired the ‘Elegy.’ In the churchyard is the tombstone raised by the poet to his aunt and his mother—and there he lies, the spot unmarked by a stone! The yew-tree and the mouldering heaps, &c., are all before you.

Mr. Murray, however, was too busy to make many country visits. He was asked at the same time by Lady Mackintosh to visit her at Murdocks, near Ware, Herts. “Do come,” she said, “and visit us in our solitude. Malthus will meet you if you come.” He was also urgently invited to visit Lady Caroline Lamb at Brockett Hall. She held out the great inducement that he should see the loveliest woman in England. Mr. W. S. Rose, whose ‘Letters from the North of Italy’ Murray had published, invited him to “come down and visit him at Gundimore, near Christ Church, Hants, where he would be made heartily welcome if he could bear with the smell of garlic and tobacco. In return for this tolerance, however,” said Rose, “I can promise you fresh salmon, strong coffee, and good claret.” But a multiplicity of business, and especially a visit which he was compelled to pay to Edinburgh in connection with his Scottish agency, prevented his acceptance.

The next letter he received from Isaac D’Israeli referred to his Northern visit:—

Mr. I. D’Israeli to John Murray.

Farnham Royal, September 28th, 1818. Dear Murray,

On Saturday we were greatly surprised by a letter from Mrs. Murray, dated at London, and with an account of your return from your Northern expedition. Yesterday we passed anxiously in expectation of your appearance; and this day is beautiful—so you have lost a day. We wish much to see you, and whenever you come you can be always certain of an excellent bedroom.

I long to hear how your new enterprise [Blackwood’s Magazine] is unfolding itself. On their side they have sent forth their note of gratulation, in their whimsical poet, on “this league with Mr. Murray.” Some young men of great promise they have got, and some I think do rather promise than perform. Three months are now closing on me, in which I am innocent of having once dipped into ink, and I believe I may promise I shall not again. But though engaging in no glorious adventures with a ship of my own any more, I’ll be glad to be useful to you, as a pilot about the narrow coast in which I have foolishly spent my days.

Farnham Royal, October, 1818.

I congratulate you on your absence from the place this day; a storm of wind and rain is playing about my ears, which may hinder me from sending off this letter, as we are above a mile from the village. But I can find no subject for congratulation in regard to next week. We are very reluctantly obliged to deny ourselves the pleasure of receiving Mrs. Murray and yourself on next Sunday; for we break up here at that time, and on Monday or Tuesday shall have returned ourselves home. I am mortified in not having seen you here, where with fine weather we might have contrived a few days’ amusement.

I am gratified to hear of any honourable mention of myself, but I have long been expecting others of a different cast. Pray, has any notice whatever been taken in the Reviews of ‘The Literary Character’? Here I am quite out of the reach of anything of this sort. My Verse will never give you any trouble, and I think my Prose will end as has my Verse. It is true, I have some things respecting Books and Authors which are new to the lovers of books, and I might give them with propriety, could I hit upon some plan; but the days of enterprise are closed. It is true that I have not dipped my pen here for literary purposes; but I have passed three months in pretty close reading of some of the best divinity which I found at my hands in Mr. Slingsby’s library. Blackwood’s was always a favourite work of mine; but a little too much personality; too much firing at small birds. Believe me, with warm attachment,

Your sincere Friend, I. D’Israeli .

Towards the end of 1818, Mr. Crabbe called upon Mr. Murray, and offered to publish through him his ‘Tales of the Hall,’ consisting of about twelve thousand lines. He also proposed to transfer to him from Mr. Colburn his other poems, so that the whole might be printed uniformly. Mr. Crabbe, who up to this period had received very little for his writings, was surprised when Mr. Murray offered him no less than £3000 for the copyright of his poems. It seemed to him a mine of wealth compared to all that he had yet received. The following morning (6th December) he breakfasted with Mr. Rogers, and Tom Moore was present. Crabbe told them of his good fortune, and of the magnificent offer he had received. Rogers thought it was not enough, and that Crabbe should have received £3000 for the ‘Tales of the Hall’ alone, and that he would try if the Longmans would not give more. He went to Paternoster Row accordingly, and tried the Longmans; but they would not give more than £1000 for the new work and the copyright of the old poems—that is, only one-third of what Murray had offered.*

When Crabbe was informed of this, he was in a state of great consternation. As Rogers had been bargaining with another publisher for better terms, the matter seemed still to be considered open; and in the meantime, if Murray were informed of the event, he might feel umbrage and withdraw his offer. Crabbe wrote to Murray on the subject, but received no answer. He had within his reach a prize far beyond his most sanguine hopes, and now, by the over-officiousness of his friends, he was in danger of losing it. In this crisis Rogers and Moore called upon Murray, and made enquiries on the subject of Crabbe’s poems. “Oh, yes,” he said, “I have heard from Mr. Crabbe, and look upon the matter as settled.” Crabbe was thus released from all his fears. When he received the bills for £3000, he insisted on taking them with him to Trowbridge to show them to his son John.

It proved after all that the Longmans were right in their offer to Rogers; Murray was far too liberal. Moore, in his ‘Diary’ (ii. 332), says, “Even if the whole of the edition (3000) were sold, Murray would still be £1900 minus.” Crabbe had some difficulty in getting his old poems out of the hands of his former publisher, who wrote to him in a strain of the wildest indignation, and even threatened him with legal proceedings, but eventually the unsold stock, consisting of 2426 copies, was handed over by Hatchard

* ‘Memoirs, Journals, Correspondence, of Thomas Moore,’ by Lord John Russell, ii. 237.

and Colburn to Mr. Murray, and nothing more was heard of this controversy between them and the poet.

Among the novels published by Mr. Murray in 1819, were Mrs. Brunton’s ‘Emmeline,’ and Mr. Hope’s ‘Anastasius.’ Mrs. Brunton was the daughter of Colonel Balfour, of Barra, in Orkney, and the wife of the Rev. Dr. Brunton, minister of Bolton, in Haddingtonshire. She had published her novel ‘Self-Control’ anonymously in 1811, and it proved successful. Her next work was ‘Discipline,’ in 1814, which was also successful. Her third was ‘Emmeline,’ which she did not live to finish, but which was published in 1819 by Mr. Murray, with an introductory memoir by her husband. Dr. Brunton’s letter to Mr. Murray was full of gratitude:—

Dr. Brunton to John Murray.

Edinburgh, 24th April, 1819. My dear Sir,

I know not how to thank you for the real kindness towards me which your letters to Messrs. Manners and Miller express. My brother-in-law, Capt. Balfour, who is to spend a few days with his uncle in Curzon Street, will present this note to you. I am quite sure that I can count upon your exertions to befriend my poor little orphan volume. But you have little leisure to inform me of its success. I may be able to do it more easily through Capt. Balfour. The vanity of authorship is wellnigh dead in me, but I have a very strong wish that this book should prosper for its subject’s sake. . . . With respectful compliments to Mrs. Murray, and very grateful recollections of her and your kindness to one who was deeply sensible of it, and who often dwells on the remembrance with pleasure, I am, my dear Sir,

Your obliged and obedient Servant, Alex. Brunton .

The letter of the Edinburgh publishers, acknowledging receipt of the then balance of profit for ‘Emmeline,’ was equally satisfactory. It was from Manners and Miller:—

Manners and Miller to John Murray.

February 7th, 1820. Dear Sir,

We had this morning the pleasure to receive your very polite letter of the 4th inst., enclosing statement of the sales of ‘Emmeline,’ and your promissory note at six months from 20th January for £305 14s. 6d. being the balance due on this work. We cannot sufficiently express the high sense we entertain of the very handsome manner in which you have settled this account, and we feel it to be the more gratifying as it was entirely unsolicited on our part. We beg you will accept of our best thanks for the kind interest you have taken in the success of ‘Emmeline,’ in which we are cordially joined by our friend Dr. Brunton, who has just been with us, and who desires to be particularly remembered to you.

‘Anastasius, or Memoirs of a Modern Greek, written at the Close of the 18th Century,’ was published anonymously, and was confidently asserted to be the work of Lord Byron, as the only person capable of having produced it. It displayed great ability, vivid imagination, remarkable powers of graphic description, and a cultivated classical taste. When it was stated to be by Mr. Thomas Hope, of Deepdene—a gentleman of great accomplishments, who had published some books on Art designs, household furniture, and internal decorations—a writer in Blackwood ridiculed the idea of such work proceeding from such a gentleman. “Mr. Hope,” the reviewer said, “is a very respectable and decorous gentleman—he can write, with some endeavour, passably about chests of drawers, paper-hangings, and cushions as soft as his own or any other brains; but that he has either the courage or the power to compile such a work as ‘Anastasius,’ I utterly and entirely deny.” Mr. Hope, however, in the next number of the magazine, claimed the sole authorship of the work. Sydney Smith, too, in the Edinburgh Review, asked, “Is this Mr. Thomas Hope? Is this the man of chairs and tables—the gentleman of sofas—the Œdipus of coal-boxes—he who meditated on muffineers and planned pokers? Where has he hidden all this eloquence and poetry up to this hour? How is it that he has all of a sudden burst out into descriptions which would not disgrace the pen of Tacitus, and displayed a depth of feeling and a vigour of imagination which Lord Byron could not excel? We do not shrink from one syllable of this eulogium. The work now before us places him at once in the highest list of eloquent writers and of superior men.”

It does not appear that Mr. Murray expected much from ‘Anastasius,’ judging from the slowness with which the work was printed and published. He received a letter from Mr. Hope, in which he wrote:—

Mr. Hope to John Murray.

The Deepdene, 12th January, 1819. My dear Sir,

I have been intending for some time to write to you, and always put it off, in hopes of having the pleasure of seeing you in Town; but as Mrs. Hope’s health leaves it very uncertain when I shall be able to go, I do not wish any longer to delay stating how very slowly the printing of ‘Anastasius’ goes on. I have always made it a rule to return the sheets sent to me to correct or to revise the same day, or perhaps the next, by the coach; and yet there is scarce one-fourth of the work printed off thus far, and, at this rate of proceeding, it certainly cannot be published under a twelvemonth. I am far from saying there has been any unnecessary delay, for I do not understand anything of the business of printing; but I should think that by not waiting to send me a new sheet to correct until after the preceding one has been revised, and perhaps printed off, some more despatch might be obtained. I have thus far only revised twelve chapters; and there are in all forty-eight, or sixteen per volume. The origin of knight-errantry has long been a matter of doubt. It is now clearly pointed out in ‘Antar.’ *

I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully, Thomas Hope .

When the book was published, Mr. Murray sent a copy to Mr. Hobhouse, and another to Mr. Croker. The former said, “Anastasius, then, is a Greek in London. If so, I know him. It must be Schinas.” Murray informed Croker of the name of the author. He replied:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

I have read just twenty pages of ‘Anastasius,’ and thank you for the information you gave me as to the author. Of course you know best, and what you volunteered to tell must be the truth, but then also I must believe in the ‘Metempsychosis,’ and that Tom Hope’s late body is now the tabernacle of Lord Byron’s soul.

The Countess of Blessington, in her ‘Conversations with Lord Byron,’ says: “Byron spoke to-day in terms of high commendation of Hope’s ‘Anastasius;’ said he had wept bitterly over many pages of it, and for two reasons—first, that he had not written it; and, secondly, that Hope had; for that it was necessary to like a man excessively to pardon his writing such a book—a book, he said, excelling all recent productions as much in wit and talent as in true pathos. He added that he would have given his two most approved poems to have been the author of ‘Anastasius.’” The work was greatly read at the time, and went through many large editions.

* ‘Life and Adventures of Antar, a celebrated Bedowen chief warrior, and poet, who flourished a few years previous to the Mahommedan Era,’ translated by Terrick Hamilton, Esq.

The refusal of the ‘Rejected Addresses,’ by Horace and James Smith, was one of Mr. Murray’s few mistakes. Horace was a stockbroker, and James a solicitor. They were not generally known as authors, though they contributed anonymously to the New Monthly Magazine, which was conducted by Campbell the poet. In 1812 they produced a collection of supposed ‘Rejected Addresses, presented for competition at the opening of Drury Lane Theatre.’ They offered the collection to Mr. Murray for £20, but he declined to purchase the copyright. The Smiths were connected with Cadell the publisher, and Murray, thinking that the MS. had been offered to and rejected by him, declined to look into it. The ‘Rejected Addresses’ were eventually published by John Miller, and excited a great deal of curiosity. They were considered to be the best imitations of living poets ever made. Byron was delighted with them. He wrote to Mr. Murray that he thought them “by far the best thing of the kind since the ‘Rolliad.’” Crabbe said of the verses in imitation of himself, “In their versification they have done me admirably.” When he afterwards met Horace Smith, he seized both hands of the satirist, and said, with a good-humoured laugh, “Ah! my old enemy, how do you do?” Jeffrey said of the collection, “I take them, indeed, to be the very best imitations (and often of difficult originals) that ever were made, and, considering their extent and variety, to indicate a talent to which I do not know where to look for a parallel.” Murray had no sooner read the volume than he spared no pains to become the publisher, but it was not until after the appearance of the sixteenth edition that he was able to purchase the copyright for £131.

Towards the end of 1819, Mr. Murray was threatened with an action on account of certain articles which had appeared in Nos. 37 and 38 of the Quarterly relative to the campaign in Italy against Murat, King of Naples. The first was written by Dr. Reginald (afterwards Bishop) Heber, under the title of ‘Military and Political Power of Russia, by Sir Robert Wilson;’ the second was entitled ‘Sir Robert Wilson’s Reply.’ Colonel Macirone occupied a very unimportant place in both articles. He had been in the service of Murat while King of Naples, and acted as his aide-de-camp, which post he retained after Murat became engaged in hostilities with Austria, then in alliance with England. Macirone was furnished with a passport for himself as envoy of the Allied Powers, and provided with another passport for Murat, under the name of Count Lipona, to be used by him in case he abandoned his claim to the throne of Naples. Murat indignantly declined the proposal, and took refuge in Corsica. Yet Macirone delivered to Murat the passport. Not only so, but he deliberately misled Captain Bastard, the commander of a small English squadron which had been stationed at Bastia to intercept Murat in the event of his embarking for the purpose of regaining his throne at Naples. Murat embarked, landed in Italy without interruption, and was soon after defeated and taken prisoner. He thereupon endeavoured to use the passport which Macirone had given him, to secure his release, but it was too late; he was tried and shot at Pizzo. The reviewer spoke of Colonel Macirone in no very measured terms. “For Murat,” he said, “we cannot feel respect, but we feel very considerable pity. Of Mr. Macirone we are tempted to predict that he has little reason to apprehend the honourable mode of death which was inflicted on his master. His vocation seems to be another kind of exit.”

Macirone gave notice of an action for damages, and claimed no less than £10,000. Serjeant Copley (afterwards Lord Lyndhurst), then Solicitor-General, and Mr. Gurney, were retained for Mr. Murray by his legal adviser Mr. Sharon Turner.

Mr. Turner to John Murray.

December 1st, 1819. Dear Murray,

Macirone’s case may come on next Monday. We must therefore now seriously prepare. I have just left Mr. Gurney. He thinks it very important that I should have an interview with Captain Bastard, to learn from him the facts he can speak to as to Macirone’s conduct towards him, that counsel may know what questions to put to him that will benefit us, and not injure. The same reason, he says, makes it expedient, if it can be done, that I should have an interview with his Grace [the Duke of Wellington], otherwise, counsel will not know what questions to put, and will be afraid of putting any, lest they should prejudice your case instead of assisting it. As the damages that are claimed are £10,000, and it will be quite in the breast of the jury what they will give, no precaution ought to be omitted. It is quite in course to ask witnesses what they know of the case in question. If you can procure any appointment to be made, I will attend at any hour between eight morning and six evening, on any day, excepting to-morrow at twelve, when I am to see the Solicitor-General.

I am, dear Murray, Yours most faithfully, Shr. Turner .

It appeared that Colonel Macirone had published an account of himself and his adventures* through the Ridgways, and that the counsel for the defence desired to introduce this volume as evidence in support of their case. On this subject Mr. Turner’s son addressed Mr. Murray:—

* ‘Memoirs of the Life and Adventures of Colonel Macirone.’ 2 vols. London, 1818.

Mr. A. Turner to John Murray.

Counsel are of opinion that Macirone must produce his book himself; but if he does not, we must; and my father, who wishes to provide against every possible accident, thinks it would perhaps be as well to subpœna one of the Ridgways to prove the publication and the identity of the copy we produce, should we require it. Can you inform us of the Christian names of the Ridgways, and when it would be the best time to meet them at home to subpœna them. Let us have an early answer, as it must be done to-morrow. I am, dear Sir,

Yours very truly, Alfred Turner .

Mr. Turner to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

As you have not sent me Capt. B.’s address, I have not been able to call upon him, but I think he ought to be at Westminster Hall by ten. Will you write to him to request it? or shall my clerk leave him a subpoena? He brings one with him. He will tell you whether he has seen Ridgway; if not, assist him how to subpœna him. All is arranged for to-morrow. There is no occasion for you to attend, unless you like it. If you do, I shall be there by half-past nine, though it may not be on until eleven, twelve, one, or two.

Another letter from Mr. Croker as to the Duke of Wellington’s evidence:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

My Dear Murray,

I certainly should most strongly recommend you to call the Duke, if Macirone does not, if it were only to prove that the letter quoted by Macirone of the Duke’s was not the real one, for the Duke had the original, which he promised to send for. The reason the Duke does not wish to see your counsel is that it appears like collusion, and it would appear singular to a jury that he should have so far interested himself in a subject which appears so little to concern him. With respect to what the Duke will think it proper to answer, we should leave it to him. I do not think it necessary, therefore, to show the enclosed to the Duke, as his time is at this moment much taken up. Above all, let us have good notice of the day, and whether on second thoughts your counsel will not call him on the point I have mentioned, as well as on all those in the brief which have been marked. In haste,

Yours truly, J. W. C.

The case came on, and on the Bench were seated the Duke of Wellington, Lord Liverpool, and other leading statesmen, who had been subpœnaed as witnesses for the defence. One of the Ridgways, publishers, had also been subpoenaed with an accredited copy of Macirone’s book; but it was not necessary to produce him as a witness, as Mr. Ball, the counsel for Macirone, quoted passages from it, and thus made the entire book available as evidence for the defendant, a proceeding of which Serjeant Copley availed himself with telling effect.

Mr. Turner, when sending Murray a copy of the names of the jury, in the midst of the trial, said:—

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.

December 11th, 1819. Dear Murray,

I send you below the names of your Jury. Your danger was rather more than usual yesterday, because from the non-attendance of enough to the Special Jury, there were eight of the Common Westminster Jury among them. This made us at first anxious to have the Duke and Capt. B. ready to give evidence if wanted, till from the plaintiffs counsel leading the cause towards our strong point of defence, we felt that they would not be necessary, and that it was better to avoid calling them, that we might preclude another speech in reply. The attacking speech was bitter, and especially on your Review. One of the flowers you did not hear—“The Quarterly Review is the Bible of a faction. There is a faction in this country as ready to swear by it as the Mahommedans by their Koran.” If you wish to have any of the shorthand notes copied out, I think the two speeches, without the passages from the book, would be sufficient. The Solicitor-General paid a high compliment both to you and to the Review.

Yours most sincerely, Sharon Turner .

The defence of Serjeant Copley was admirable. He substantiated the facts stated in the Quarterly article by passages quoted by Colonel Macirone’s own ‘Memoirs.’ Before he had concluded his speech, it became obvious that the Jury had arrived at the conclusion to which he wished to lead them; but he went on to drive the conclusion home by a splendid peroration.* The Jury intimated that they were all agreed; but the Judge, as a matter of precaution, proceeded to charge them on the evidence placed before them; and as soon as he had concluded, the Jury, without retiring from the box, at once returned their verdict for the defendant.

Although Mr. Murray had now a house in the country, he was almost invariably to be found at Albemarle Street. We find, in one of his letters to Blackwood, dated Wimbledon, 22nd May, 1819, the following: “I have been unwell with bile and rheumatism, and have come to a little place here, which I have bought lately, for a few days to recruit.”

At No. 50, Albemarle Street, his drawing-room was the daily resort of visitors of distinction, while his dinner parties became highly popular from the pains which he took and the tact which he displayed in assorting and drawing out

* Given in Sir Theodore Martin’s ‘Life of Lord Lyndhurst,’ p. 170.

his guests, among whom were such men as Thomas Moore, Walter Scott, Theodore Hook, Henry Hallam, J. W. Croker, John Barrow, Thomas Campbell, William Gifford. His hospitality never relaxed. Most of the distinguished Americans who visited England came to him with letters of introduction. Mr. Everett, then Secretary of Legation to the Netherlands, visited Mr. Murray when passing through London, and obtained from him an introduction to Walter Scott, which, as Mr. Everett afterwards said, had “secured for him so kind a reception.” With respect to his entertainments, Mrs. Bray, the novelist, relates in her ‘Autobiography,’ that in the autumn of 1819, she made a visit to Mr. Murray, with her then husband, Charles Stothard, son of the well-known artist, for the purpose of showing him the illustrations of his ‘Letters from Normandy and Brittany.’

“We did not know,” she says, “that Mr. Murray held daily from about three to five o’clock a literary levée at his house. In this way he gathered round him many of the most eminent men of the time. On calling, we sent up our cards, and finding he was engaged, proposed to retreat, when Mr. Murray himself appeared and insisted on our coming up. I was introduced to him by my husband, and welcomed by him with all the cordiality of an old acquaintance. He said Sir Walter Scott was there, and he thought that we should like to see him, and to be introduced to him. ‘You will know him at once,’ added Mr. Murray, ‘he is sitting on the sofa near the fire-place.’ We found Sir Walter talking to Mr. Gifford, then the Editor of the Quarterly Review. The room was filled with men and women, and among them several of the principal authors and authoresses of the day; but my attention was so fixed on Sir Walter and Mr. Gifford that I took little notice of the rest. Many of those present were engaged in looking at and making remarks upon a drawing, which represented a Venetian Countess (Guiccioli), the favourite, but not very respectable friend of Lord Byron. Mr. Murray made his way through the throng in order to lead us up to Sir Walter. We were introduced. Mr. Murray, anxious to remove the awkwardness of a first introduction, wished to say something which would engage a conversation between ourselves and Sir Walter Scott, and asked Charles if he happened to have about him his drawing of the Bayeux tapestry to show to Sir Walter. Charles smiled and said ‘No;’ but the saying answered the desired end: something had been said that led to conversation, and Sir Walter, Gifford, Mr. Murray, and Charles chatted on, and I listened.

“Gifford looked very aged, his face much wrinkled, and he seemed to be in declining health; his dress was careless, and his cravat and waistcoat covered with snuff. There was an antique, philosophic cast about his head and countenance, better adapted to exact a feeling of curiosity in a stranger than the head of Sir Walter Scott; the latter seemed more a man of this world’s mould. Such, too, was his character; for, with all his fine genius, Sir Walter would never have been so successful an author, had he not possessed so large a share of common sense, united to a business-like method of conducting his affairs, even those which perhaps I might venture to call the affairs of imagination. We took our leave; and before we got further than the first landing, we met Mr. Murray conducting Sir Walter downstairs; they were going to have a private chat before the departure of the latter.”*

Such was the first introduction of Mrs. Bray to Mr. Murray, who afterwards published for her the well-known work on ‘The Borders of the Tamar and the Tavy.’

* ‘Mrs. Bray’s Autobiography,’ pp. 145-7.

CHAPTER XXIII. MEMOIRS OF LADY HERVEY AND HORACE WALPOLE—BELZONI—MILMAN—SOUTHEY—BELL—MRS. RUNDELL, ETC.

About the beginning of 1819, the question of publishing the letters and reminiscences of Lady Hervey, grandmother of the Earl of Mulgrave, was brought under the notice of Mr. Murray. Lady Hervey was the daughter of Brigadier-General Lepel, and the wife of Lord Hervey, of Ickworth, author of the ‘Memoirs of the Court of George II. and Queen Caroline.’ Her letters formed a sort of anecdotal history of the politics and literature of her times. A mysterious attachment is said to have existed between her and Lord Chesterfield, who, in his letters to his son, desired him never to mention her name when he could avoid it, while she, on the other hand, adopted all Lord Chesterfield’s opinions, as afterwards appeared in the aforesaid letters. Mr. Walter Hamilton, author of the ‘Gazetteer of India,’ an old and intimate friend of Mr. Murray, who first brought the subject under Mr. Murray’s notice, said, “Lady Hervey writes more like a man than a woman, something like Lady M. W. Montagu, and in giving her opinion she never minces matters.” Mr. Hamilton recommended that Archdeacon Coxe, author of the ‘Lives of Sir Robert and Horace Walpole,’ should be the editor. Mr. Murray, however, consulted his fidus Achates, Mr. Croker; and, putting the letters in his hands, asked him to peruse them, and, if he approved, to edit them. The following was Mr. Croker’s answer:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

November 22nd, 1820. Dear Murray,

I shall do more than you ask. I shall give you a biographical sketch—sketch, do you hear?—of Lady Hervey, and notes on her letters, in which I shall endeavour to enliven a little the sameness of my author. Don’t think that I say sameness in derogation of dear Mary Lepel’s powers of entertainment. I have been in love with her a long time; which, as she was dead twenty years before I was born, I may without indiscretion avow; but all these letters being written in a journal style and to one person, there is a want of that variety which Lady Hervey’s mind was capable of giving. I have applied to her family for a little assistance; hitherto without success; and I think, as a lover of Lady Hervey’s, I might reasonably resent the little enthusiasm I find that her descendants felt about her. In order to enable me to do this little job for you, I wish you would procure for me a file, if such a thing exists, of any newspaper from about 1740 to 1758, at which latter date the Annual Register begins, as I remember. So many little circumstances are mentioned in letters and forgotten in history, that without some such guide, I shall make but blind work of it. If it be necessary, I will go to the Museum and grab them, as my betters have done before me. My dear little Nony* was worse last night, and not better all to-day; but this evening they make me happy by saying that she is decidedly improved.

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

Send me ‘Walpoliana.’ I have lost or mislaid mine. Are there any memoirs about the date of 1743, or later, beside Bubb’s?

That Mr. Croker made all haste and exercised his

* Mr. Croker’s adopted daughter, afterwards married to Sir George Barrow.

usual painstaking industry in doing “this little job” for Mr. Murray, will be evident from the following letters:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

December 27th, 1820. Dear Murray,

I have done ‘Lady Hervey.’ I hear that there is a Mr. Vincent in the Treasury, the son of a Mr. and Mrs. Vincent, to whom the late General Hervey, the favourite son of Lady Hervey, left his fortune and his papers. Could you find out who they are? Nothing is more surprising than the ignorance in which I find all Lady Hervey’s descendants about her. Most of them never heard her maiden name. It reminds one of Walpole writing to George Montagu, to tell him who his grandmother was! I am anxious to knock off this task whilst what little I know of it is fresh in my recollection; for I foresee that much of the entertainment of the work must depend on the elucidations in the Notes.

Yours J. W. C.

Another letter from Croker on the same subject is interesting for its allusion to two works with which his name was, in after years, to be so intimately associated.

December 29th, 1820.

“I want to consult only the first volume of Bozzy’s ‘Johnson,’ and any complete edition of ‘Pope.’ You can have no idea of the labour of detecting the meaning of allusions in a private correspondence of 80 years old. But I shall be able, I hope, to throw a great deal of light on Lady Hervey’s riddles.”

The publication of Lady Hervey’s letters in 1821 was so successful that Mr. Croker was afterwards induced to edit, with great advantage, letters and memorials of a similar character.*

* As late as 1848, Mr. Croker edited Lord Hervey’s ‘Memoirs of the Court of George II. and Queen Caroline,’ from the family archives at Ickworth. The editor in his preface said that Lord Hervey was almost the Boswell of George II. and Queen Caroline.

The next important mémoires pour servir were brought under Mr. Murray’s notice by Lord Holland, in the following letter:—

Lord Holland to John Murray.

Holland House, November 1820. Sir,

I wrote a letter to you last week which by some accident Lord Lauderdale, who had taken charge of it, has mislaid. The object of it was to request you to call here some morning, and to let me know the hour by a line by twopenny post. I am authorized to dispose of two historical works, the one a short but admirably written and interesting memoir of the late Lord Waldegrave, who was a favourite of George II., and governor of George III. when Prince of Wales. The second consists of three close-written volumes of ‘Memoirs by Horace Walpole’ (afterwards Lord Orford), which comprise the last nine years of George II.’s reign. I am anxious to give you the refusal of them, as I hear you have already expressed a wish to publish anything of this kind written by Horace Walpole, and had indirectly conveyed that wish to Lord Waldegrave, to whom these and many other MSS. of that lively and laborious writer belong. Lord Lauderdale has offered to assist me in adjusting the terms of the agreement, and perhaps you will arrange with him; he lives at Warren’s Hotel, Waterloo Place, where you can make it convenient to meet him. I would meet you there, or call at your house; but before you can make any specific offer, you will no doubt like to look at the MSS., which are here, and which (not being mine) I do not like to expose unnecessarily to the risk even of a removal to London and back again.

I am, Sir, your obedient humble Servant, &c., Vassall Holland .

It would appear that Mr. Murray called upon Lord Holland and looked over the MSS., but made no proposal to purchase the papers. The matter lay over until Lord Holland again addressed Mr. Murray.

Lord Holland to John Murray.

It appears that you are either not aware of the interesting nature of the MSS. which I shewed you, or that the indifference produced by the present frenzy about the Queen’s business* to all literary publications, has discouraged you from an undertaking in which you would otherwise engage most willingly. However, to come to the point. I have consulted Lord Waldegrave on the subject, and we agree that the two works, viz., his grandfather, Lord Waldegrave’s ‘Memoirs,’ and Horace Walpole’s ‘Memoirs of the Last Nine Years of George II.,’ should not be sold for less than 3000 guineas. If that sum would meet your ideas, or if you have any other offer to make, I will thank you to let me know before the second of next month. I am likely to be in the country for the next ten days, and I have not hitherto mentioned the subject of these MSS. to any publisher or bookseller, as both Lord Waldegrave and myself were anxious to give you the refusal. It will, however, for obvious reasons, be inconvenient to me and disadvantageous to Lord Waldegrave not to terminate the negociations soon. You will, therefore, excuse my pressing you for an answer in time enough to enable us (in case of your refusal) to enter into an arrangement with others for publishing the works next spring.

I am, Sir, your obliged and obedient, Vassall Holland .

Three thousand guineas was certainly a very large price to ask for the Memoirs, and Mr. Murray hesitated very much before acceding to Lord Holland’s proposal. He requested to have the MSS. for the purpose of consulting his literary adviser—probably Mr. Croker, though the following remarks, now before us, are not in his handwriting.

“This book of yours,” says the critic, “is a singular production. It is ill-written, deficient in grammar, and

* The trial of Queen Caroline was then occupying public attention.

often in English; and yet it interests and even amuses. Now, the subjects of it are all, I suppose, gone ad plures; otherwise it would be intolerable. The writer richly deserves a licking or a cudgelling to every page, and yet I am ashamed to say I have travelled unwearied with him through the whole, divided between a grin and a scowl. I never saw nor heard of such an animal as a splenetic, bustling kind of a poco-curante. By the way, if you happen to hear of any plan for making me a king, be so good as to say that I am deceased; or tell any other good-natured lie to put the king-makers off their purpose. I really cannot submit to be the only slave in the nation, especially when I have a crossing to sweep within five yards of my door, and may gain my bread with less ill-usage than a king is obliged to put up with. If half that is here told be true, Lord Holland seems to me to tread on ‘ignes Suppositos cineri doloso’ in retouching any part of the manuscript. He is so perfectly kind and good-natured, that he will feel more than any man the complaints of partiality and injustice; and where he is to stop, I see not. There is so much abuse that little is to be gained by an occasional erasure, while suspicion is excited. He would have consulted his quiet more by leaving the author to bear the blame of his own scandal.”

Notwithstanding this adverse judgment, Mr. Murray was disposed to buy the Memoirs. Lord Holland drove a very hard bargain, and endeavoured to obtain better terms from other publishers, but he could not, and eventually Mr. Murray paid to Lord Waldegrave, through Lord Holland, the sum of £2500 on November 1st, 1821, for the Waldegrave and Walpole Memoirs. They were edited by Lord Holland, who wrote a preface to each, and were published in the following year, but never repaid their expenses. After suffering considerable loss by this venture, Mr. Murray’s rights were sold, after his death, to Mr. Colburn. The last letter that Lord Holland addressed to Mr. Murray on the subject was as follows:—

Lord Holland to John Murray.

December 21st, 1821. Dear Sir,

Allow me to thank you for your note and enclosure. The latter, which I return [a letter of Lord Byron’s], is full of wit and fancy, of satire and gaiety. Perhaps I enjoy it more than those whose reverence for the late King’s public character is greater than my own, and who will be shocked at his political delinquencies being made the vehicle for ridiculing an injudicious panegyrist [Southey’s ‘Vision of Judgment’]. Your letter is very obliging. The time I have devoted to Walpole’s work has been very amusing, and in some measure instructive to me, and I should feel very happy if I could believe my labours in any degree contributed to the success of the publication. I wrote a long letter to you yesterday on the subject of the MSS. of both Memoirs, Waldegrave’s and Walpole’s. As, however, the purport of it was to communicate to you Lord Waldegrave’s wishes and intentions, of which I am sure you will approve, I enclosed it for his perusal before I sent it to you, and he has not hitherto returned it.

I am, Sir, Your obliged and obedient, Vassall Holland .

The last of the mémoires pour servir to which we shall here refer was the Letters of the Countess of Suffolk, bedchamber woman to the Princess of Wales (Caroline of Anspach), and a favourite of the Prince of Wales, afterwards George II. The Suffolk papers were admirably edited by Mr. Croker. Thackeray, in his ‘Lecture on George the Second,’ says of his work: “Even Croker, who edited her letters, loves her, and has that regard for her with which her sweet graciousness seems to have inspired almost all men, and some women, who came near her.” The following letter of Croker shows the spirit in which he began to edit the Countess’s letters:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

May 29th, 1822. Dear Murray,

As you told me that you are desirous of publishing the Suffolk volume by November, and as I have, all my life, had an aversion to making any one wait for me, I am anxious to begin my work upon them, and, if we are to be out by November, I presume it is high time. I must beg of you to answer me the following questions.

1st. What shape will you adopt? I think the correspondence of a nature rather too light for a quarto, and yet it would look well on the same shelf with Horace Walpole’s works. If you should prefer an octavo, like Lady Hervey’s letters, the papers would furnish two volumes. I, for my part, should prefer the quarto size, which is a great favourite with me, and the letters of such persons as Pope, Swift, and Gay, the Duchesses of Buckingham, Queensberry, and Marlbro’, Lords Peterborough, Chesterfield, Bathurst, and Lansdowne, Messrs. Pitt, Pulteney, Pelham, Grenville, and Horace Walpole, seem to me almost to justify the magnificence of the quarto; though, in truth, all their epistles are, in its narrowest sense, familiar, and treat chiefly of tittle-tattle.

Decide, however, on your own view of your interests, only recollect that these papers are not to cost you more than ‘Belshazzar,’* which I take to be of about the intrinsic value of the writings on the walls, and not a third of what you have given Mr. Crayon for his portrait of Squire Bracebridge. 2nd. Do you intend to have any portraits? One of Lady Suffolk is almost indispensable, and would be enough. There are two of her at Strawberry Hill; one, I think, a print, and neither, if I forget not, very good. There is also a print, an unassuming one, in Walpole’s works, but a good artist would make something out of any of these, if even we can get nothing better to make our copy from. If you were to increase your number of

* Mr. Milman’s poem, for which Mr. Murray paid 500 guineas. See pp. 105-6.

portraits, I would add the Duchess of Queensberry, from a picture at Dalkeith which is alluded to in the letters; Lady Hervey and her beautiful friend, Mary Bellenden. They are in Walpole’s works; Lady Hervey rather mawkish, but the Bellenden charming. I dare say these plates could now be bought cheap, and retouched from the originals, which would make them better than ever they were. Lady Vere (sister of Lady Temple, which latter is engraved in Park’s edition of the ‘Noble Authors’) was a lively writer, and is much distinguished in this correspondence. Of the men, I should propose Lord Peterborough, whose portraits are little known; Lord Liverpool has one of him, not, however, very characteristic. Mr. Pulteney is also little known, but he has been lately re-published in the Kit-cat Club. Of our Horace there is not a decent engraving anywhere. I presume that there must be a good original of him somewhere. Whatever you mean to do on this point, you should come to an early determination and put the works in hand.

3rd. I mean, if you approve, to prefix a biographical sketch of Mrs. Howard and two or three of those beautiful characters with which, in prose and verse, the greatest wits of the last century honoured her and themselves. To the first letter of each remarkable correspondent I would also affix a slight notice, and I would add, at the foot of the page, notes in the style of those on Lady Hervey. Let me know whether this plan suits your fancy.

4th. All the letters of Swift, except one or two, in this collection are printed (though not always accurately) in Scott’s edition of his works. Yet I think it would be proper to reprint them from the originals, because they elucidate much of Lady Suffolk’s history, and her correspondence could not be said to be complete without them. Let me know your wishes on this point.

5th. My materials are numerous, though perhaps the pieces of great merit are not many. I must therefore beg of you to set up, in the form and type you wish to adopt, the sheet which I send you, and you must say about how many pages you wish your volume, or volumes, to be. I will then select as much of the most interesting as will fill the space which you may desire to occupy.

Yours truly, J. W. Croker .

Mr. Croker also consented to edit the letters of Mrs. Delany to Mr. Hamilton, 1779-88, containing many anecdotes relating to the Royal Family.

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

“I have shown Mrs. Delany’s MS. letters to the Prince Regent; he was much entertained with this revival of old times in his recollection, and he says that every word of it is true. You know that H.R.H. has a wonderful memory, and particularly for things of that kind. His certificate of Mrs. Delany’s veracity will therefore be probably of some weight with you. As to the letter-writing powers of Mrs. Delany, the specimen inclines me to doubt. Her style seems stiff and formal, and though these two letters, which describe a peculiar kind of scene, have a good deal of interest in them, I do not hope for the same amusement from the rest of the collection. Poverty, obscurity, general ill-health, and blindness are but unpromising qualifications for making an agreeable volume of letters. If a shopkeeper at Portsmouth were to write his life, the extracts of what relates to the two days of the Imperial and Royal visit of 1814 would be amusing, though all the rest of the half century of his life would be intolerably tedious. I therefore counsel you not to buy the pig in Miss Hamilton’s bag (though she is a most respectable lady), but ask to see the whole collection before you bid.”

The whole collection was obtained, and, with some corrections and elucidations, the volume of letters was given to the world by Mr. Murray in 1821.

In May 1820 Mr. Murray requested Mr. Croker to edit Horace Walpole’s ‘Reminiscences.’ Mr. Croker replied, saying: “I should certainly like the task very well if I felt a little better satisfied of my ability to perform it. Something towards such a work I would certainly contribute, for I have always loved that kind of tea-table history.” Not being able to undertake the work himself, Mr. Croker recommended Mr. Murray to apply to Miss Berry, the editor of Lady Russell’s letters. “The Life,” he said, “by which those letters were preceded, is a beautiful piece of biography, and shows, besides higher qualities, much of that taste which a commentator on the ‘Reminiscences’ ought to have.” The work was accordingly placed in the hands of Miss Berry, who edited it satisfactorily, and it was published by Mr. Murray in the course of the following year.

Dr. Tomline, while Bishop of Winchester, entered into a correspondence with Mr. Murray respecting the ‘Life of William Pitt.’ In December 1820, Dr. Tomline said he had brought the Memoirs down to the Declaration of War by France against Great Britain on the 1st of February, 1793, and that the whole would make two volumes quarto. Until he became Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Tomline had been Pitt’s secretary, and from the opportunities he had possessed, there was promise here of a great work; but it was not well executed, and though a continuation was promised, it never appeared. When the work was sent to Mr. Gifford, he wrote to Mr. Murray that it was not at all what he expected, for it contained nothing of Pitt’s private history. “He seems to be uneasy until he gets back to his Parliamentary papers. Yet it can hardly fail to be pretty widely interesting; but I would not have you make yourself too uneasy about these things. Pitt’s name, and the Bishop’s, will make the work sell.” Gifford was right. The ‘Life’ went to a fourth edition in the following year.

Among Mr. Murray’s devoted friends and adherents was Giovanni Belzoni, who, born at Padua in 1778, had, when a young man at Rome, intended to devote himself to the monastic life, but the French invasion of the city altered his purpose, and, instead of being a monk, he became an athlete. He was a man of gigantic physical power, and went from place to place, gaining his living in England, as elsewhere, as a posture master, and by exhibiting at shows his great feats of strength. He made enough by this work to enable him to visit Egypt, where he erected hydraulic machines for the Pasha, and, through the influence of Mr. Salt, the British Consul, was employed to remove from Thebes, and ship for England, the colossal bust commonly called the Young Memnon. His knowledge of mechanics enabled him to accomplish this with great dexterity, and the head, now in the British Museum, is one of the finest specimens of Egyptian sculpture.

Belzoni, after performing this task, made further investigations among the Egyptian tombs and temples. He was the first to open the great temple of Ipsambul, cut in the side of a mountain, and at that time shut in by an accumulation of sand. Encouraged by these successes, he, in 1817, made a second journey to Upper Egypt and Nubia, and brought to light at Carnac several colossal heads of granite, now in the British Museum. After some further explorations among the tombs and temples, for which he was liberally paid by Mr. Salt, Belzoni returned to England with numerous drawings, casts, and many important works of Egyptian art. He called upon Mr. Murray, with the view of publishing the results of his investigations, which in due course were issued under the title of ‘Narrative of the Operations and recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations in Egypt and Nubia.’

It was a very expensive book to arrange and publish, but nothing daunted Mr. Murray when a new and original work was brought under his notice. Although only 1000 copies were printed, the payments to Belzoni and his translators, as well as for plates and engravings, amounted to over £2163. The preparation of the work gave rise to no little difficulty, for Belzoni declined all help beyond that of the individual who was employed to copy out or translate his manuscript and correct the press. “As I make my discoveries alone,” he said, “I have been anxious to write my book by myself, though in so doing the reader will consider me, with great propriety, guilty of temerity; but the public will, perhaps, gain in the fidelity of my narration what it loses in elegance.” Lord Byron, to whom Mr. Murray sent a copy of his work, said: “Belzoni is a grand traveller, and his English is very prettily broken.”

Belzoni was a very interesting character, and a man of great natural refinement. After the publication of his work, he became one of the fashionable lions of London, but was very sensitive about his early career, and very sedulous to sink the posture-master in the traveller. He was often present at Mr. Murray’s receptions; and on one particular occasion he was invited to join the family circle in Albemarle Street on the last evening of 1822, to see the Old Year out and the New Year in. All Mr. Murray’s young people were present, as well as the entire D’Israeli family and Crofton Croker. After a merry game of Pope Joan, Mr. Murray presented each of the company with a pocket-book as a New Year’s gift. A special bowl of punch was brewed for the occasion, and, while it was being prepared, Mr. Isaac D’Israeli took up Crofton Croker’s pocket-book, and with his pencil wrote the following impromptu words:— “Gigantic Belzoni at Pope Joan and tea, What a group of mere puppets we seem beside thee; Which, our kind host perceiving, with infinite zest, Gives us Punch at our supper, to keep up the jest.”

The lines were pronounced to be excellent, and Belzoni, wishing to share in the enjoyment, desired to see the words. He read the last line twice over, and then, his eyes flashing fire, he exclaimed, “I am betrayed!” and suddenly left the room. Crofton Croker called upon Belzoni to ascertain the reason of his abrupt departure from Mr. Murray’s, and was informed that he considered the lines to be an insulting allusion to his early career as a showman. Croker assured him that neither Murray nor D’Israeli knew anything of his former life; finally he prevailed upon Belzoni to accompany him to Mr. Murray’s, who for the first time learnt that the celebrated Egyptian explorer had many years before been an itinerant exhibitor in England.

In 1823 Belzoni set out for Morocco, intending to penetrate thence to Eastern Africa; he wrote to Mr. Murray from Gibraltar, thanking him for many acts of kindness, and again from Tangier.

M. G. Belzoni to John Murray. April 10th, 1823.

“I have just received permission from H.M. the Emperor of Morocco to go to Fez, and am in hopes to obtain his approbation to enter the desert along with the caravan to Soudan. The letter of introduction from Mr. Wilmot to Mr. Douglas has been of much importance to me; this gentleman fortunately finds pleasure in affording me all the assistance in his power to promote my wishes, a circumstance which I have not been accustomed to meet in some other parts of Africa. I shall do myself the pleasure to acquaint you of my further progress at Fez, if not from some other part of Morocco.”

Belzoni would appear to have changed his intention, and endeavoured to penetrate to Timbuctoo from Benin, where, however, he was attacked by dysentery, and died a short time after the above letter was written.

Like many other men of Herculean power, he was not eager to exhibit his strength; but on one occasion he gave proof of it in the following circumstances. Mr. Murray had asked him to accompany him to the Coronation of George IV. They had tickets of admittance to Westminster Hall, but on arriving there they found that the sudden advent of Queen Caroline, attended by a mob claiming admission to the Abbey, had alarmed the authorities, and who caused all the doors to be shut. That by which they should have entered was held close and guarded by several stalwart janitors. Belzoni thereupon advanced to the door, and, in spite of the efforts of these guardians, including Tom Crib and others of the pugilistic corps who had been engaged as constables, opened it with ease, and admitted himself and Mr. Murray.

Captain Parry, on returning from his first voyage to the Polar Regions, prepared a narrative of his expedition, and called upon Mr. Murray with respect to its publication. On the 7th November, 1820, he wrote to Mr. Murray accepting his offer of one thousand guineas for the work; the engravings to be done at the publisher’s expense. Some official delays, however, interfered with the due delivery of the MS., and Murray found himself, as in the case of Mungo Park’s Journal, and Tuckey’s Narrative, anticipated by another work on the same subject. After waiting for more than six months, he was under the necessity of addressing the following letter to Mr. Croker, Secretary to the Lords of the Admiralty:—

John Murray to Mr. Croker.

May 3rd, 1821.

I beg leave most respectfully to state, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that I have paid to Captain W. E. Parry the sum of One Thousand Guineas for the entire copyright of his ‘Journal of the late Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage,’ and also for the exclusive right of first publication on that subject, which I was assured their Lordships had vested in me and would secure to Captain Parry. That I have further been at a considerable additional expense in procuring the necessary and suitable charts, maps, and other engravings, and in printing the Work with a view in all respects to render its appearance not unworthy of their Lordships’ “Authority,” with which the imprint has been officially honoured; and that I have used every means in my power to effect the speedy publication of this Work. I beg you, Sir, further to state to their Lordships that I now find, with astonishment and mortification, that all my expense and labour will terminate most probably in loss and disappointment, in consequence of the unexpected and, as I conceive, illegal publication of another account of the same Voyage, by Mr. Alexander Fisher, who accompanied the expedition in quality of Surgeon on board H.M.S. Griper. I therefore throw myself on the protection of their Lordships, and solicit such remedy as the case may appear to require, and their Lordships may be disposed in their wisdom to grant me.

Mr. Murray had also reason to complain that he had not been furnished with an account of the botanical specimens found by Captain Parry during his voyage; and that, if published without them, the work would be imperfect. Mr. Barrow informed Mr. Murray that the list and description had been prepared by Mr. Brown.

Mr. Barrow to John Murray.

“I feel, as Captain Sabine and every officer employed on the voyage must feel, that yourself, and above all, the Public, at whose expense the voyage was performed, have reason to complain of the shameful delay and apparent neglect that have taken place, and which certainly call for public explanation. If Captain Parry had left with me the proper authority, I would have taken care no such delay nor neglect should have happened; but you agreed with him and paid him for a complete work. I consider that you are authorized to demand from Mr. Brown what, by his own admission, he undertook to perform; and in failure of compliance, to desire him to return to you immediately the specimens of plants, which you may easily get described by some other botanist in the course of a week.”

The work was at length published in 1821; but the Supplement, containing the Natural History, did not appear until 1824.

In May 1820, Mr. W. C. Macready offered to Mr. Murray, Sheridan Knowles’ tragedy of ‘Virginius,’ then about to be performed at Covent Garden. Mr. B. W. Procter (Barry Cornwall) supported Mr. Macready’s application, and said that ‘Virginius’ “is the most spirited and dramatic tragedy of late years, and certainly more free from fustian and commonplace than any that has been written for the London boards within my memory.” But Mr. Murray was now less disposed to publish dramas than he had been at the commencement of his career, when he offered to publish Colman’s work, and at a later date, when he had published Maturin’s ‘Bertram,’ and Sheil’s ‘Apostate’ and ‘Evadne.’ He had now much more important works to engross his attention, and he therefore declined the proposal.

After Lord Byron, the principal dramatic writer, whose works were published by Mr. Murray, was the Rev. H. H. Milman, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s. He had attained much distinction at Oxford, had won the Newdigate prize in 1812, the Chancellor’s prize in 1813, and the prize for English and Latin essays in 1816, besides being elected a Fellow of Brasenose College in 1815. His tragedy of ‘Fazio,’ which he wrote while at Oxford, was published by Mr. Murray soon after he had taken his first degree, and was subsequently produced on the stage, the heroine being splendidly acted first by Miss O’Neil, and afterwards by Miss Fanny Kemble. ‘Fazio’ was followed, in 1818, by an epic poem in twelve books, ‘Samor, Lord of the Bright City.’ It was commenced while Milman was an Eton boy, but was not finished and published until after the success of ‘Fazio.’ He had been appointed Vicar of St. Mary’s, Reading; and it was there that he composed his next great work ‘The Fall of Jerusalem: a Sacred Tragedy,’ which was sent to Mr. Murray, accompanied by the following letter:—

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray. Jan 3, 1820.

“Though written in a dramatic form, it is neither intended for, nor can be adapted to public representation. It is religious in its scope and language. . . . I shall be happy to receive a proposal from you, should you be inclined to purchase the copyright. I should however recommend—and indeed require—that it should be as little talked of as possible before the time of actual publication. I suppose you are all ‘Ivanhoe’ mad in London. Really, this Scott, or whoever he may be, is a marvellous fellow—absolutely inexhaustible in resources.”

Mr. Murray, as usual, consulted Mr. Gifford, whose opinion was most favourable. “I have been more and more struck,” he said, “with the innumerable beauties in Milman’s ‘Fall of Jerusalem.’” This judgment was communicated to the author, who replied:—

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray.

“I shall be happy to receive an offer from you for the copyright. I depend upon you stating as high a sum as you can safely venture on the speculation and such as you are in the habit of giving for similar productions, of course taking into consideration the good or evil repute of the author . . . If I recollect right, you bought all ‘Fazio,’ except the first edition. Of the popularity of ‘Samor’ I myself always entertained doubts, independent of other objections. It was too long and too laboured for the hurrying taste of the day, which reads in the morning what it may talk of in the evening. Much of it was written at an early period; indeed, the first notion was formed when I was at Eton; it, therefore, wanted both unity of character and of style. Should another edition ever be called for I should alter it much, and, above all, take especial care of the havock which the printers’ devils made in it. Of the present work none of the same objections have been made, and the subject ought at least to ensure it a considerable interest with the public.”

Mr. Murray, having requested the author to state his own price for the copyright, Mr. Milman wrote:—

“I am totally at a loss to fix one. I think I might decide whether an offer were exceedingly high or exceedingly low, whether a Byron or Scott price, or such as is given to the first essay of a new author. Though the ‘Fall of Jerusalem’ might demand an Israelitish bargain, yet I shall not be a Jew further than my poetry. Make a liberal offer, such as the prospect will warrant, and I will at once reply, but I am neither able nor inclined to name a price . . . As I am at present not very far advanced in life, I may hereafter have further dealings with the Press, and, of course, where I meet with liberality shall hope to make a return in the same way. It has been rather a favourite scheme of mine, though this drama cannot appear on the boards, to show it before it is published to my friend Mrs. Siddons, who perhaps might like to read it, either at home or abroad. I have not even hinted at such a thing to her, so that this is mere uncertainty, and, before it is printed, it would be in vain to think of it, as the old lady’s eyes and MS. could never agree together.

“P.S.—I ought to have said that I am very glad of Aristarchus’ [Gifford’s] approval. And, by the way, I think, if I help you in redeeming your character from ‘Don Juan,’ the ‘Hetæræ’ in the Quarterly* &c., you ought to estimate that very highly.”

* Mitchell’s article on ‘Female Society in Greece,’ Q. R. No. 43.

Mr. Murray offered Mr. Milman five hundred guineas for the copyright, to which the author replied: “Your offer appears to me very fair, and I shall have no scruple in acceding to it.”

The ‘Fall of Jerusalem,’ brought out at the end of 1820, with illustrations after the designs of Mr. R. Westall, quickly caught the public attention, and was crowned by general applause.

Mr. Milman continued his poetic career, and soon announced to Mr. Murray the completion of a dramatic poem on the ‘Martyrdom of St. Margaret,’ afterwards denominated ‘The Martyr of Antioch.’

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray.

July, 1821. My Dear Murray,

It will afford me an opportunity of introducing the most splendid part of the heathen worship—that of Apollo. I do not wish this to be known just at present . . . Babylon will probably follow, at least Belshazzar. But I rather wish to throw out those who suppose me now occupied with that subject. By the way, I believe you are the worst secret-keeper possible; at least, you have the character of being a very leaky vessel. Now do not, to prove to me that I am slandering you, refuse to let me into all the secrets I wish to know about the writers in the Review, &c.

September, 1821.

“I suppose you are debating with yourself how many thousand pounds you intend to give me for my poem, or do you intend to enjoy your summer holidays without a single interruption from authors or bookmakers, whichever name you condescend to dignify us with? I shall be sorry to have disturbed your quiet enjoyment of your due repose, but cannot help wishing to hear what is become of the fair Lamb who was committed to your keeping about a month ago, and whom you have not yet noticed.”

The poem was accepted, printed, and published at the beginning of 1822, in the course of which year the poem of ‘Belshazzar’ was also published. Neither of these dramas was so well received as ‘The Fall of Jerusalem.’ In sending the MS. of ‘Belshazzar’ to Mr. Murray, the author said, “I give you fair warning that all the friends who have hitherto seen it, assure me that I shall not do myself justice unless I demand a very high price for it.” Mr. Murray made an offer for the work, which Mr. Milman did not consider sufficient. He replied (March 15, 1822), “If it had been double I should have hesitated; as it is, I have no scruple in stating that I cannot accede to it.” He added that he was opposed to any other plans than the sale of the copyright. This drew from Mr. Murray the following letter:—

John Murray to Mr. Milman.

Albemarle Street, March 18th, 1822. Dear Sir,

I did not return to town in time to reply to your letter on Saturday; but, after my last to you, I have only to express my sincere and great regret that we should differ so totally in our estimates of copyright. Such a circumstance never occurred to me before, for I have usually had the good fortune to anticipate the expectations of those who have honoured me with the publication of their works. In the present instance you should consider that my valuation is formed upon the sale of your former works, and yours upon the opinion of friends. I have told you what has been gained by the one, and of the uncertainty which still obtains—if there may not be a loss—upon the other; and, in such circumstances, and as I was certainly not illiberal in my proposal for the first drama, I might have flattered myself that something might have been confided to me in case your new poem should succeed beyond my expectations. I will very readily print it and give you two-thirds of the profit. Your friends thought more of the ‘Martyr of Antioch’ than of the ‘Fall of Jerusalem’; but my opinion of it has already been verified by the public; and, if ‘Belshazzar’ be better than either, it would have made up for the last. What I mean by the three dramas forming a 12s. volume is, that this is what they naturally would form, and it was my own ingenuity that enabled me to publish them in a way never before attempted, and to put such a price upon them as might insure the return of the large sum I had given for them. You appear not to be aware that it is a much larger sum, considering their sale, than ever was given to Lord Byron; but, when our difference is so wide, more need not be said, and I shall conclude by repeating that I am at this moment uncertain if the sale of the ‘Martyr of Antioch’ will repay its expenses, and that, should you finally determine to quit me, you will be the first author who has ever left me upon account of money.

Yours very faithfully and obediently, John Murray .

The truth is that Mr. Murray paid what would now be considered a rather excessive price for Mr. Milman’s works. For ‘Fazio,’ which was published in 1818, he paid 150 guineas; for the ‘Fall of Jerusalem,’ published in 1820, he paid 500 guineas; for the ‘Martyr of Antioch,’ published in 1821, and for ‘Belshazzar,’ published in 1822, he paid 500 guineas each. But, as these were indifferently received, he was unwilling to give so large a price for his next work, ‘Anne Boleyn,’ for which Mr. Milman received 100 guineas for the first edition and 50 guineas for the second. When Mr. Milman afterwards sent Mr. Murray the revised poem of ‘Samor,’ he said, “As to the copyright of ‘Samor,’ whatever you think it worth I shall be glad to receive.” Nothing appears to have been paid for it, nor did it even pay its expenses.

During the time that ‘Belshazzar’ was in course of printing and publication Mr. Milman went for a month’s holiday on the Continent. While at Venice a canal had been dredged under his window. He wrote to Murray on his return home:—

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray. December 27th, 1822.

“If Lord Byron had written about Venice while I was there he would not have talked of the ‘Bridge of Sighs,’ but of the ‘Bridge of Stinks’. . . It really is lamentable to see your friend Lord Byron do everything which people who hate, fear, and envy him, would have especially wished him to do. One would have hoped that poor Shelley’s fate would have had one good effect—the producing a little serious sober thought.”

Milman became a contributor to the Quarterly, and one of Murray’s historians, and wrote the ‘History of the Jews,’ and the ‘History of Christianity;’ he edited Gibbon and Horace, and continued during his lifetime to be one of Mr. Murray’s most intimate and attached friends.

In 1820 we find the first mention of a name afterwards to become as celebrated as any of those with which Mr. Murray was associated. Owing to the warm friendship which existed between the Murrays and the D’Israelis, the younger members of both families were constantly brought together on the most intimate terms. Mr. Murray was among the first to mark the abilities of the boy, Benjamin Disraeli, and, as would appear from the subjoined letter, his confidence in his abilities was so firm that he consulted him as to the merits of a MS. when he had scarcely reached his eighteenth year.

Mr. Benjamin Disraeli to John Murray.

August, 1822. Dear Sir,

I ran my eye over three acts of ‘Wallace,’* and, as far as I could form an opinion, I cannot conceive these acts to be as effective on the stage as you seemed to expect. However, it is impossible to say what a very clever actor like Macready may make of some of the passages. Notwithstanding the many erasures the diction is still diffuse, and sometimes languishing, though not inelegant. I cannot imagine it a powerful work as far as I have read. But, indeed, running over a part of a thing with people talking around is too unfair. I shall be anxious to hear how it succeeds. Many thanks, dear sir, for lending it to me. Your note arrives. If on so slight a knowledge of the play I could venture to erase either of the words you set before me, I fear it would be Yes, but I feel cruel and wicked in saying so. I hope you got your dinner in comfort when you got rid of me and that gentle pyramid [Belzoni].

Yours truly, B. D.

Mr. Southey was an indefatigable and elaborate correspondent, and, as his letters have already been published, it is not necessary to quote them. But a few extracts maybe given from those written to Mr. Murray in 1820, which do not seem yet to have been given to the world. He rarely wrote to Mr. Gifford, who cut down his articles, and, as Southey insisted, generally emasculated them by omitting the best portions.

Mr. Southey to John Murray.

“February 1, 1820.—I have made a good beginning of a little book upon the ‘Danger of the Times, and the Prospects

* ‘Wallace: a Historical Tragedy,’ in five acts, was published in 1820. Joanna Baillie spoke of the author, C. E. Walker, as “a very young and promising dramatist.”

of Society,’ and, as my thoughts would not have been so much occupied on this subject if they had not been directed that way by the Q. R., you have a right to their publication. The form upon which I have fixed is that of Dialogue between the author and the spirit of Sir Thomas More, or rather a series of dialogues, in which a parallel between the present age and that of the Reformation is drawn, as to the chief characteristics of society. Under this form I can advance more than I should choose to make myself responsible for without occasion. I shall bring together curious historical matters, and relieve the subject by interspersing a few pieces of poetry (as Boethius has done, from whom, indeed, the conception of the book was taken), and by some local descriptions so managed as to be introductory of the dialogue. It may be worth while to give the volume an attractive appearance by a few views, which Wm. Westall may make when he comes next into this country. I have very little doubt that it will excite considerable attention, and lead many persons into a wholesome train of thought. . . . My main employment at this time is in finishing Wesley, which I shall have completed in little more than a fortnight, and in filling up the paper upon the New Churches for your number after the next. The old books which you collected for me have been of the greatest service. . . . You had better send me Cromwell’s Memoirs. There can be no better subject for a biographical article. And with it Noble’s ‘Memoirs of the Regicides.’ I have his Memoirs of the Cromwell family, and I have also the Cromwelliana, and Harris, and I believe most, if not all, the important books connected with his history.”

“February 19, 1820.—You have sent me a duplicate of Chabouton de Fleury and of Burckhardt, which I will return, cum multis aliis. Burckhardt is an excellent traveller in every respect. Oliver Cromwell’s book is one of the very worst that was ever made by a dull man, and will hardly be of the slightest use in drawing up a life of Old Oliver. It will serve, however, for text. The French life I have not yet examined further than to see that some pains have been taken with it, and that even painstaking Frenchmen are wretchedly acquainted with our bibliography. The author conceives De Foe’s ‘Memoirs of a Cavalier’ to be authentic history, and knows nothing of what Noble has done. . . . The reign of George III. is a wide subject, and I must talk seriously with you concerning it. Such a work, in its present design, as Voltaire’s ‘Life of Louis XIV.,’ upon a larger scale in proportion to the greater extent of the subject, is what I have long thought of. A comprehensive and philosophical view of all the revolutions which have occurred during those eventful sixty years, with no more detail than is required for effect, for a detailed history would be a tremendous undertaking, almost beyond any man’s strength. But I am sure that a most popular work upon my plan might be produced within the compass of four volumes, or perhaps of three; a book which everybody would read, and which would keep its place.”

“April 5, 1820.—Before I leave home I shall send you the paper on the Churches, and I shall bring up Huntington, the Sinner Saved, to finish at Streatham. This fellow’s life and writings will form a very amusing and uncommon article. Cromwell is next on the list, and this, with a life of Camoens, and more forthcoming ‘Travels in Brazil,’ will make up a year’s work for the Review, unless the state of affairs in Spain should make you desirous of a paper on that subject. I have that ‘History of the Inquisition’ here of which you formerly sent me the Spanish manuscript; this might furnish an important paper, where the prospects of Spain (very dismal ones, I fear) might be brought in at the conclusion. I had nearly forgotten to mention ‘Antar,’ for which I have been reading widely concerning Arabic and other points connected with it. That poem of Mrs. Hemans upon the king is very beautiful. . . . My ‘Life of Wesley,’ I hear, has been noticed in the Literary Gazette before it is published. I suppose it will be ready next week. It will not please any particular set of men, and will violently offend all the bitter part of the Dissenters, who are the larger part. Attacks, no doubt, will be made upon me from all quarters, and of course I shall reply to none.”

“July 10, 1820.—Thank you for the draft. I am now preparing for you with all proper dispatch both the ‘Peninsular War’ and the ‘Book of the Church,’ and you will have the commencement of the first very shortly, and that of the second soon after it, for I am now as seriously at work as the summer interruptions of this place will admit. An hour or two before I left London, I found a card from Sir George Dallas expressing a wish on the part of Mrs. Hastings to see me the next day at twelve. . . . From our connection with Sir George Dallas, it appears to me that the proper plan will be to publish a selection from Warren Hastings’s papers and correspondence, accompanying it with his life. That life requires a compendious view of our Indian history down to the time of his administration, and in its progress it embraces the preservation of our Indian empire and the establishment of the existing system. Something must be interwoven concerning the history of the native powers, Mahomedan, Moor, Mahratta, &c., and their institutions. I see how all this is to be introduced, and see also that no subject can afford materials more important or more various. And what a pleasure it will be to read the triumph of such a man as Hastings over the tremendous combination of his persecutors at home! I had a noble catastrophe in writing the life of Nelson, but the latter days of Hastings afford a scene more touching, and perhaps more sublime, because it is more uncommon. Let me have the works of Orme and Bruce and Mill, and I will set apart a portion of every day to the cause of reading, and begin my notes accordingly.”

“October 28, 1820.—You ask me concerning the times, a subject on which, living in perfect peace, and out of the sphere of the prevailing madness, I am little qualified to form an opinion, except, indeed, the opinion which I have long held, that things must be worse before they are better. The Whigs will go on as they have begun, till an explosion takes place, and then we shall see who among them are fools and who traitors; the traitors will be five to one, but the fools are those who have the most weight to throw into the scale, provided the balance be not destroyed. I shall probably have something for you when it is time—some preventives and remedies to suggest; but we must wait for the proper season. I expect that my book of dialogues will produce some impression now, and some good in time. I mean to sweeten it, that it may go down, with descriptive sketches of the country, and some poems, so that there may be something for various tempers. Westall has made some sketches for it, and I shall spare no pains in the composition, designing that any reputation for political sagacity should rest upon this work. The ‘Book of the Church’ will so certainly do good, that I feel a sense of duty among my motives for delaying it no longer. I could send you a portion now, but it will be better to advance further, that I may more accurately estimate its extent; the subject might easily tempt me to be more diffuse than I intended. You will really serve as well as oblige me, if you will let me have a duplicate set of proofs of my articles, that I may not lose the passages which Mr. Gifford, in spite of repeated promises, always will strike out. In the last paper, among many other mutilations, the most useful fact in the essay, for its immediate practical application, has been omitted, and for no imaginable reason (the historical fact that it was the reading a calumnious libel which induced Felton to murder the Duke of Buckingham). When next I touch upon public affairs for you, I will break the Whigs upon the wheel.”

It will be observed from these extracts from Southey’s letters in one year, 1820, how entirely occupied he was with literary work. He went from subject to subject, planning many works which he had not the time or opportunity to elaborate—constantly reading, writing, and storing up knowledge. He could not accept Murray’s handsome offer of £500 per volume for six volumes of his ‘Biographies,’ expanded from the Quarterly, as his ‘Life of Nelson’ had been, because he was too much occupied in writing for daily bread. When reviewing Hayley’s Life, he wrote to his friend Bedford, “I am reviewing ‘Hayley’ to pay my midsummer bills.” When the ‘Book of the Church’ was finished, Murray offered 700 guineas for it, but Southey preferred to take his chance of half profits, believing it would become a valuable property. It would have been better for himself had he taken the cash down.

There seems to be a sort of fascination about periodical literature to those who once touch it. The Quarterly was certainly enough to absorb Mr. Murray’s spare energies, yet, after it had been fairly and successfully established, he was desirous also of having a monthly periodical, as we have already seen. His acquaintance with Blackwood, and consequent partnership in the Edinburgh Magazine, for a time satisfied this desire. After withdrawing from this, he contemplated starting a Foreign Quarterly Magazine. Then he was offered a share in the Sun newspaper, which he declined; and now, in 1820, we find him part proprietor with Mr. Croker of the Guardian newspaper, printed by Charles Knight, at Windsor.

Mr. Croker, when leaving London for Paris in company with Mrs. Croker, on the 24th of July, 1820, writes to Mr. Murray:—“The Guardian will apply to you for some of the weekly advances which we promised, and which you are to make on our joint account; you ought to watch and control their expenditure.”

Application was accordingly made to Mr. Murray by Street, the publisher. In his first letter he writes:—

“The fact is that you have almost always been out of town since the 27th of July—the time of the last advance. I should be very much obliged to you for part, if not the whole, of the arrears, as I have accepted a bill which becomes due on the 15th of October, which if not paid will subject me to great inconvenience.”

He proceeded to say that he had written to Mr. Croker, asking him to accept his resignation. In his next letter he requested Mr. Murray to advance him the arrears of £10 per week, for the purchase of stamps for the Guardian. This was followed by a letter from Charles Knight, intimating his fear lest the paper should be entirely stopped, Mr. Street gave no attention to the business—“Indeed, I may consider that he has abandoned it altogether.” There was, therefore, the greatest difficulty in procuring money for stamp and advertisement duty. The amount due for stamps, paper, and printing was about £500, and the paper makers and the stationers had refused to supply any more paper and stamps. The result was that the concern was wound up, and the proprietors burnt their fingers. Mr. Murray was not, however, cured of his desire to establish a newspaper, as will be found from a future chapter of this biography.

Besides the pulls upon him on account of the Windsor newspaper, Mr. Murray had numerous applications for advances and loans to poor authors as well as to those who were not authors. The Hon. Augusta Leigh asked for a further loan, as she was “poverty’s self.” Ugo Foscolo requested a loan of £50. Mr. Salamé, author of Lord Exmouth’s ‘Expedition to Algiers,’ also wanted a loan of £250. John Miller, who was “very distressed, and at the last gasp,” wanted pecuniary help; and Charles Marsh had left an article for the Quarterly, for which (though not accepted) he desired to have £15, in addition to what he already had borrowed “as money on manuscripts deposited.”

At the beginning of 1821, Mr. Murray was strongly recommended to publish Mr., afterwards Sir Charles, Eastlake’s ‘Translation of Baron Bartholdy’s Memoirs of the Carbonari.’ Mr. Eastlake had been an art student at Rome, and was recommended by Mr. John Crawford as “a painter of very considerable merit,” and was at the same time introduced by Mr. Murray’s old friend, Mr. R. W. Hay. On Eastlake’s arrival in England, he put himself in communication with Mr. Murray, and sent his translation of ‘Memoires sur les Socie’tes Secretes dans le Midi de l’Italie,’ together with ‘Memoires sur le Brigandage dans le Midi de l’Italie.’ Baron Bartholdy required £1500 for the original and the translation. Mrs. Graham, who had seen Eastlake at Plymouth, and thought the manuscript most interesting, urged Mr. Murray to publish ‘The Carbonari;’ and he eventually acceded to her request.

Mrs. Graham to John Murray.

February 24th, 1821.

All great men have to pay the penalty of their greatness, and you, arch-bookseller as you are, must now and then be entreated to do many things you only half like to do. I shall half break my heart if you and Bartholdy do not agree.

* * * * * *

Now, whether you publish ‘The Carbonari’ or not, I bespeak your acquaintance for the translator, Mr. Eastlake. I want him to see the sort of thing that one only sees in your house, at your morning levies—the traffic of mind and literature, if I may call it so. To a man who has lived most of his grown up life out of England, it is both curious and instructive, and I wish for this advantage for my friend. And in return for what I want you to benefit him, by giving him the entrée to your rooms, I promise you great pleasure in having a gentleman of as much modesty as real accomplishment, and whose taste and talents as an artist must one day place him very high among our native geniuses. You and Mrs. Murray would, I am sure, love him as much as Captain Graham and I do. We met him at Malta on his return from Athens, where he had been with Lord Ruthven’s party. Thence he went to Sicily with Lord Leven. In Rome, we lived in the same house. He was with us at Poli, and last summer at Ascoli with Lady Westmoreland. I have told him that, when he goes to London, he must show you two beautiful pictures he has done for Lord Guilford, views taken in Greece. You will see that his pictures and Lord Byron’s poetry tell the same story of the ‘Land of the Unforgotten Brave.’ I envy you your morning visitors. I am really hungry for a new book. If you are so good as to send me any provision fresh from Murray’s shambles, as Mr. Rose says, address it to me, care of Wm. Eastlake, Esq., Plymouth. Love to Mrs. Murray and children.

Yours very gratefully and truly, Maria Graham .

P.S.—If Graham has a ship given him at the time, and at the station promised, I shall be obliged to visit London towards the end of March or the beginning of April.

Mrs. Graham (afterwards Lady Callcott) was on very intimate terms with Mr. and Mrs. Murray, and became godmother to one of their daughters. She paid her visit to London in due course, and afterwards set out to accompany her husband in H.M.S. Doris, to the coast of South America, where we shall afterwards find her—an established favourite at the Court of the Emperor and Empress of Brazil.

Lord Byron’s works continued to be in great demand at home, and were soon pounced upon by the pirates in America and France. The Americans were beyond Murray’s reach, but the French were, to a certain extent, in his power. Galignani, the Paris publisher, wrote to Lord Byron, requesting the assignment to him of the right of publishing his poetry in France. Byron replied that his poems belonged to Mr. Murray, and were his “property by purchase, right, and justice,” and referred Galignani to him, “washing his hands of the business altogether.” M. Galignani then applied to Mr. Murray, who sent him the following answer:—

John Murray to M. Galignani.

January 16th, 1821. Sir,

I have received your letter requesting me to assign to you exclusively the right of printing Lord Byron’s works in France. In answer I shall state what you do not seem to be aware of, that for the copyright of these works you are printing for nothing, I have given the author upwards of £10,000. Lord Byron has sent me the assignment, regularly made, and dated April 20, 1818; and if you will send me £250 I will make it over to you. I have just received a Tragedy by Lord Byron, for the copyright of which I have paid £1050, and also three new cantos of Don Juan, for which I have paid £2100. What can you afford to give me for the exclusive right of printing them in France upon condition that you receive them before any other bookseller? Your early reply will oblige

Your obedient Servant, J. Murray .

M. Galignani then informed Mr. Murray that a pirated edition of Lord Byron’s works had been issued by another publisher, and was being sold for 10 francs; and that, if he would assign him the new Tragedy and the new Cantos of Don Juan, he would pay him £100, and be at the expense of the prosecution of the surreptitious publisher. But nothing was said about the payment of £250 for the issue of Lord Byron’s previous work.

In May 1821 Mr. Murray suffered a serious domestic calamity in the death of his second son William. Many condolences came to him from his intimate friends. Mr. Gifford, in his letter of the 24th, wrote:—

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

“I say nothing of your recent loss, though I lament it from my heart. You have already reasoned sadly and wisely on the subject. You have still abundant blessings—still all the ingredients of rational happiness. Use them well and hope for the best results. I went this morning to the British Gallery, and am much pleased, though in constant pain. Pray remember me in the kindest manner to Mrs. Murray.”

Mr. Murray also received the kindest sympathy from Mrs. Graham, Mr. Barrow, Dr. Somerville (of Edinburgh), and Mr. Croker. The latter had recently suffered a similar bereavement, losing his only son. Writing to Mr. Murray he said:—

“All my books are at Munster House, whither I have not the courage to go; for the rooms there, that look so empty, are full of my poor boy.”

And now he said to his equally distressed friend:—

“You believe that I can pity you and Mrs. Murray though I have known too well the folly of all condolence to attempt it with you. But, in comparing your loss with my own, I see how incomparably less dreadful your losses, than that which has broken our hearts and blasted our hopes.”

Mr. Murray continued to publish poetry, though not to the same extent as before. “Here I am again! the plague of your life!” wrote Lady Dacre* to him, enclosing a collection of poems for private circulation, and desiring him to send copies to “the dear little Anacreon Moore,” to Mr. Gifford, Madame de Flahaut, Mr. Sotheby, Lady Maryborough, and others.† A few months later, she wrote to her publisher:—

Lady Dacre to John Murray.

November, 1821. Dear Mr. Murray,

I did not even attempt to see you in my way through town, having found by experience that you are only to be taken as wasps are, by setting fire to your nest at Wimbledon and smoking you out. I could find it in my heart to do it but for the lady love and the baby bees.

In August 1821 Mr., afterwards Sir Charles Bell, entered into a correspondence with Mr. Murray as to the publication of the second edition of his ‘Essay on the Anatomy of Expression in Painting.’ Mr. Bell was not only an able surgeon (having been Professor of Surgery in Edinburgh), but an admirable draughtsman. He went to Waterloo, shortly after the battle, and made a series of

* Formerly Mrs. Wilmot.

† Lady Dacre was afterwards the author of ‘Recollections of a Chaperon’ (1833), and ‘Trevelyan’ (1834).

rapid sketches, in water-colour, of patients in the various hospitals, which are unequalled for vividness and expression. These are now the property of the London Society of Apothecaries. Mr. Bell eventually settled in London, and became highly distinguished for his skill and professional knowledge. The ‘Anatomy of Expression’ was first published in 1806 by the Longmans. Mr. Bell was not dissatisfied with their treatment, but he thought he might obtain some help from Mr. Murray as a friend as well as a publisher. The reasons for his application are best set forth in his own letter:—

Mr. Bell to John Murray.

August 25th, 1821.

An old West India debt of £200 has been unexpectedly demanded of me at this dead season, and this has spurred me to fulfil an intention which I have entertained for three or four years past, a revisal and addition to my work on ‘Expression,’ 4to. I published the first edition with the Longmans, on the plan of dividing profits. They wish to cut it down to an octavo. I wish to improve it, and make it more splendid. You will perceive how I am situated—pride and poverty at issue; no unfrequent situation of my countrymen. I wish to give you the property of this book, prescribing one handsome edition, with two additional essays and some spirited etchings in illustration; after which you might reprint it in what fashion you please, you in the meantime enabling me to meet this demand upon me by bills. The complication of the subject made me say that I wished for the advice of a friend. I must add that there is no misunderstanding betwixt me and the Longmans. I am inclined to believe they would do much to favour me. But I know you can do for me what I wish through this publication; that is, to have a work of some taste and judgment in the Arts before the public, and I would be sorry to sacrifice this object to a trifling present necessity.

I am, dear Sir, yours truly, Charles Bell .

Mr. Murray undertook the publication of this work, as well as of other works, for his friend Sir Charles Bell.

Among his other correspondents, Mr. Murray had frequent communications with Miss Eleanor Annie Porden, daughter of Mr. Porden, architect, a great friend of Mr. Gifford, afterwards wife of Captain Franklin, the Arctic navigator. The first communication which we have before us was written on the 10th December, 1821, when she informed Mr. Murray that she had completed her revision of ‘Cœur de Lion.’ She also asked about her ‘Arctic Expedition,’ a poem which had appeared in 1818. A previous poem of hers ‘The Veils; or, the Triumph of Constancy,’ issued in 1815, had met with some success. It was the publication of ‘The Arctic Expedition’—suggested by her visit to the Isabella and Alexander, the discovery ships—which led to her making the acquaintance of Captain Franklin, and afterwards to her marriage to him in 1823. Mr. Murray also published the works of Captain (afterwards Sir John) Franklin as well as her own. Captain Franklin’s ‘Narrative of a Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea,’ 1819-22, appeared in 1823, and Mrs. Franklin’s ‘Cœur de Lion’ in 1824.*

Towards the end of 1821 Mr. Murray received a letter from Messrs. Longman & Company, intimating, in a friendly way, “you will see in a day or two, in the newspapers, an advertisement of Mrs. Rundell’s improved edition of her ‘Cookery Book,’ which she has placed in our hands for

* Mrs. Franklin died in the following year. Captain Franklin had submitted to the Government a plan for an expedition overland to the north-west extremity of America, with the object of surveying the coast between the Mackenzie and Copper Mine Rivers. He set out on the 16th February, 1825, and his wife died six days after he departure. Captain Franklin was absent more than two years, and about a year after his return in September 1827, he married again and afterwards received the honour of knighthood.

publication.” Now, the ‘Domestic Cookery,’ as enlarged and improved by Mr. Murray, had been one of his best properties. It had been written out from various receipts collected by Mrs. Rundell, while living at Swansea, in 1806. Previous works of the kind had been chiefly adapted to the requirements of large households or public institutions, but Mr. Murray at once discerned the need for a manual for family use, and suggested the admirable title ‘Domestic Cookery.’ The first edition was very imperfect, and Mr. Murray had taken considerable pains to improve it, sending to Mrs. Rundell several receipt books, from which she made extracts, assisted by her daughters, for the second edition.

Mrs. Rundell to John Murray.

July 4th, 1806.

I am sorry I am so slow with the second edition, and much vexed that ill-health delays it, as several of my young friends are just setting out in household concerns, and wish the book as a companion. I am indeed flattered to find it is deemed useful in its present defective state, and hope it will have more merit when reproduced.

And again:—

September 17th, 1808. My dear Sir,

Your very handsome and most unexpected present I have just received; I can truly say I never had the smallest idea of any return for what I considered, and which really was, a free gift to one whom I had long regarded as my friend.

If in truth you have found my little work productive so far above your expectations as to render your very obliging enclosure a satisfaction to your own feelings, I will not affront your noble sentiment by returning it—although your persuasion of its being honourable to my poor abilities is really necessary to make me believe I do not err in accepting it.

I beg to return you my best acknowledgments, my dear sir, and to assure you, of what I however hope you do not doubt, that I am your obliged friend and obedient servant,

Maria Eliza Rundell .

The second edition, completed at Ambleside, where Mrs. Rundell was residing with her daughters, was submitted to the inspection and correction of Mr. Nott; and Frances Ann (Mrs. Rundell’s daughter) wrote to Mr. Murray that “we shall feel less terror in presenting it to the world after it has passed through his hands.” The proofs of this edition had, according to Mrs. Rundell, “been miserably prepared for the press.” “Pray employ some proper person to correct it after me, I beg.” In sending in the “copy,” Mrs. Rundell said: “As to receiving remuneration for such trifles, I beg you will not think of it, especially as I do not consider you under any obligation for them, being actuated to the work by a desire, for my own sake, to make the work as good as in my power, from its being generally known to come from my pen.”

The correspondence with Mrs. Rundell ceased, and Mr. Murray took the editing, correction, and improvement of the ‘Domestic Cookery’ into his own hands. He not only had the whole work thoroughly revised by efficient editors,* who added many new receipts and omitted much that was useless or out of date, but introduced numerous engravings, showing the proper method of carving and how dishes ought to be served up. He thus made the work virtually a new one, and, by means of constant advertising, he eventually succeeded in making it a valuable property. He was always on the look-out for new contributors for the ‘Cookery.’ When Moore informed him that

* One of them was Dr. Charles Taylor, of the Society of Arts.

Lady Morgan was willing to write something for his Library, he asked, “Isn’t Lady Morgan a good cook?”—“Why?” “Perhaps she would do something in that line.” “Why, you don’t mean,” said Moore, “that she should write a cookery book for you?” “No,” answered Murray, coolly, “but I thought she might re-edit mine.”

When Mr. Murray heard of Mrs. Rundell’s intention to bring out her Cookery Book through the Longmans, he consulted his legal adviser, Mr. Sharon Turner, who recommended that an injunction should at once be taken out to restrain the publication, and retained Mr. Littleday and Mr. Serjeant Copley for Mr. Murray. The injunction was duly granted. Mr. Turner wrote to Mr. Rees, one of the Longmans’ partners, as follows:—

Mr. Sharon Turner to Mr. Rees.

January 1st, 1822.

I am sorry that any difference should arise about the ‘Domestic Cookery.’ But the facts stand thus. The Chancellor has granted an injunction to restrain from writing and publishing any edition of that part of the work which belongs to Mr. Murray, or any part of it under that title, or with their embellishments and arrangements and from making any use whatever of the title and embellishments and arrangements made by Mr. Murray. Now, your announcement, I think, will bring you in the scope of this, for it expressly makes an important use of the title.

He proceeded to say that Mr. Murray had given orders to take immediate steps if the injunction should be infringed, and also that Mr. Murray’s right of publishing continued unrestricted.

Mrs. Rundell gave notice of her intention to move the Lord Chancellor to dissolve the injunction, and Mr. Longman offered to act as a mediator between Mr. Murray and Mrs. Rundell. To this proposal Mr. Sharon Turner sent the following communication:—

Mr. Sharon Turner to Mr. Longman. January 15th, 1822.

“I thank you for your letter. But you have not a more full conviction of your right to any of your most certain copyrights than Mr. Murray has of his as to the ‘Domestic Cookery.’ And, as the Chancellor takes the same view of it, the matter must be determined by legal authority.”

The result of the litigation, which lasted for some time, was that Mr. Murray voluntarily agreed to pay to Mrs. Rundell £2000, in full of all claims, and her costs and expenses. The Messrs. Longman were to deliver to Mr. Murray the stereotype plates of her Cookery Book, and they stopped all further advertisements of Mrs. Rundell’s work. Mr. Sharon Turner thus sums up the result of the controversy:—

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

The discussion on the Cookery Book has made but one impression everywhere, and highly to your credit. Even the Literary Gazette, which you do not, I believe, much befriend, showed this feeling. I told Mr. Shadwell what you had authorized me to do if they abandoned all legal proceedings, and he expressed himself strongly on your handsome conduct. Mrs. R., therefore, has only augmented your reputation by her attack, and this is really one of the highest prizes of human life, which few get, or, if they get, can keep. As Home and Shadwell took much pains, I think if you were to send them each a copy of the Cookery Book, and (as a novelty) of ‘Cain,’ it would please them.

Ever yours, sincerely and obliged, Sh. Turner .

The result was that Mr. Murray continued to hold complete control of the ‘Domestic Cookery,’ and that it long continued to be one of his most popular publications. When Moore heard that £2000 had been given for the copyright, he was astonished. “Gad!” said Luttrell, “one wonders that there should be any bad dinners going.” Moore continues, in his Diary:* “I called at Pickering’s, in Chancery Lane, who showed me the original agreement between Milton and Symonds for the payment of five pounds for ‘Paradise Lost.’ The contrast of this sum with the £2000 given by Mr. Murray for Mrs. Rundell’s ‘Cookery’ comprises a history in itself. Pickering, too, gave forty-five guineas for this agreement, three times as much as the sum given for the poem.”

* ‘Moore: Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence,’ v. p. 119.

CHAPTER XXIV. WASHINGTON IRVING—UGO FOSCOLO—LADY CAROLINE LAMB—‘HAJJI BABA’—MRS. MARKHAM’S HISTORIES—ALLAN CUNNINGHAM, ETC.

The book trade between England and America was in its infancy at the time of which we are now writing, and though Mr. Murray was frequently invited to publish American books, he had considerable hesitation in accepting such invitations, though he had, as we have seen, published Captain Riley’s ‘Narrative,’ to the advantage of the author as well as himself. At an early period Mr. Washington Irving induced an American publisher, Mr. Thomas of Philadelphia, to send to Mr. Murray some of the best books published in that country—the ‘Life of Patrick Henry,’ Maclure’s ‘Geology,’ ‘History of the War in the West Country,’ and Breckenridge’s ‘Louisiana’; but Mr. Murray considered the risk too great, and declined to republish these works in England. In 1807, at the early age of twenty-four, Washington Irving himself became an author, and published his ‘Salmagundi’ in numbers. Two years later he published his ‘History of New York,’ in mock heroic language, under the name of ‘Diedrich Knickerbocker.’ He entered into partnership with his two brothers, who had established an extensive mercantile firm at New York and Liverpool, and came to England in 1815 to superintend the operations of the business at the northern seaport.

While in London he called upon Mr. Murray, and was asked to dine, as distinguished Americans usually were. He thus records his recollections of the event in a letter to his brother Peter at Liverpool:—

Mr. Washington Irving to Mr. Peter Irving. August 19th, 1817.

“I had a very pleasant dinner at Murray’s. I met there D’Israeli and an artist [Brockedon] just returned from Italy with an immense number of beautiful sketches of Italian scenery and architecture. D’Israeli’s wife and daughter came in in the course of the evening, and we did not adjourn until twelve o’clock. I had a long tête-à-tête with old D’Israeli in a corner. He is a very pleasant, cheerful old fellow, curious about America, and evidently tickled at the circulation his works have had there, though, like most authors just now, he groans at not being able to participate in the profits. Murray was very merry and loquacious. He showed me a long letter from Lord Byron, who is in Italy. It is written with some flippancy, but is an odd jumble. His Lordship has written some 104 stanzas of the fourth canto (‘Childe Harold’). He says it will be less metaphysical than the last canto, but thinks it will be at least equal to either of the preceding. Murray left town yesterday for some watering-place, so that I have had no further talk with him, but am to keep my eye on his advertisements and write to him when anything offers that I may think worth republishing in America. I shall find him a most valuable acquaintance on my return to London.”

In August, Washington Irving again visited Albemarle Street, when, as he says, “the town is quite deserted. I saw two or three of the lions of the Quarterly Review in Murray’s den; but almost all the literary people are out of town, and those that have not the means of travelling, lurk in their garrets and affect to be in the country, for you know these poor devils have a great desire to be thought fashionable.”

It is not improbable that Washington Irving’s visit to Abbotsford had encouraged his previous inclination to make literature his profession. At all events, his business in Liverpool having proved a failure, he was, in 1818, proceeding with the papers in his famous ‘Sketch Book,’ which he wrote in England, and sent to his brother Ebenezer in New York to be published there. The work appeared in three parts in the course of the year 1819. Several of the articles were copied in English periodicals and were read with great admiration. A writer in Blackwood expressed surprise that Mr. Irving had thought fit to publish his ‘Sketch Book’ in America earlier than in Britain, and predicted a large and eager demand for such a work. On this encouragement, Irving, who was still in England, took the first three numbers, which had already appeared in America, to Mr. Murray, and left them with him for examination and approval. Several days, however, elapsed before any answer was received, and then Irving, construing the publisher’s silence into a tacit rejection of his work, wrote to him, begging that the numbers might be returned. The following was Mr. Murray’s reply:—

John Murray to Mr. Irving.

October 27th, 1819. My dear Sir,

I entreat you to believe that I feel truly obliged by your kind intentions towards me, and that I entertain the most unfeigned respect for your tasteful talents. My house is completely filled with workpeople at this time, and I have only an office to transact business in, and yesterday I was wholly occupied or I should have done myself the pleasure of seeing you. If it would not suit me to engage in the publication of your present work, it is only because I do not see that scope in the nature of it which would enable me to make those satisfactory accounts between us, without which I really feel no satisfaction in undertaking to publish for you; but I will do all that I can to promote their circulation, and shall be most ready to attend to any future plan of yours. With much regard,

I remain, dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, John Murray .

Irving thereupon sought (but did not take) the advice of Sir W. Scott, and entered into an arrangement with Miller of the Burlington Arcade, and in February, 1820, the first four numbers were published in a volume. Miller shortly after became bankrupt, the sale of the book (of which one thousand had been printed) was interrupted, and Irving’s hopes of profit were dashed to the ground. At this juncture, Walter Scott, who was then in London, came to his help.

“I called to him for help as I was sticking in the mire, and, more propitious than Hercules, he put his own shoulder to the wheel. Through his favourable representations Murray was quickly induced to undertake the future publication of the work which he had previously declined. A further edition of the first volume was put to press, and from that time Murray became my publisher, conducting himself in all his dealings with that fair, open, and liberal spirit which had obtained for him the well-merited appellation of the Prince of Booksellers.”*

Irving, being greatly in want of money, offered to dispose of the work entirely to the publisher, and Murray, though he had no legal protection for his purchase, not only gave him £200 for it, but two months later he wrote to Irving, stating that his volumes had succeeded so much beyond his commercial estimate that he begged he

* Preface to the revised edition of ‘The Sketch Book.’

would do him the favour to draw on him at sixty-five days for one hundred guineas in addition to the sum agreed upon. And again, eight months later, Murray made Irving a second gratuitous contribution of a hundred pounds, to which the author replied, “I never knew any one convey so much meaning in so concise and agreeable a manner.”

Washington Irving having now made his mark as an author, his society was generally sought after; and his agreeable manners and conversation made him a general favourite in Murray’s drawing-room. The description he gives of Gifford in the following passage is very characteristic:—

“As I am launched upon the literary world here, I find my opportunities of observation extending. Murray’s drawing-room is a great resort of first-rate literary characters. Whenever I have a leisure hour, I go there, and seldom fail to meet with some interesting personages. The hours of access are from two to five. It is understood to be a matter of privilege, and that you must have a general invitation from Murray. Here I frequently meet with such personages as Gifford, Campbell, Foscolo, Hallam (author of a work on the Middle Ages), Southey, Milman, Scott, Belzoni, &c. The visitors are men of different politics, though most frequently Ministerialists. Gifford, of whom, as an old adversary, you may be curious to know something, is a small, shrivelled, deformed man of about sixty, with something of a humped back, eyes that diverge, and a large mouth. He is generally reclining on one of the sofas, and supporting himself by the cushions, being very much debilitated. He is mild and courteous in his manners, without any of the petulance that you would be apt to expect, and is quite simple, unaffected, and unassuming. Murray tells me that Gifford does not write any full articles for the Review, but revises, modifies, prunes, and prepares whatever is offered; and is very apt to extract the sting from articles that are rather virulent.”*

* Letter to James K. Paulding, May 27th, 1820.

While Washington Irving was in Paris in 1820, whither he had gone to help his brother to make a fresh start in business, he observed that a poem had been published entitled ‘The Lay of the Scottish Fiddle,’ which had been attributed to him. He immediately wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mr. Washington Irving to John Murray.

October 26th, 1820. My dear Sir,

On taking up a London paper this morning, I found my name given at full length in an advertisement of Cawthorn’s as author of a poem he has just republished, entitled ‘The Lay of a Scottish Fiddle.’ As I wish to be answerable for no sins but my own, I would take it as a particular favour if you would contradict it in your next advertisement of the ‘Sketch Book.’ The work in question was written by a Mr. Paulding.* What particularly annoys me is that the poem is a burlesque on the writings of Sir Walter Scott, for whom I have so perfect an esteem and affection, and it contains political and national reflections of a different nature from those I entertain.

Mr. Murray’s letter to Washington Irving set his mind at rest as to any mischief that his friend Paulding’s ‘Lay’ might do to the reputation of Sir Walter Scott; and he informed Mr. Irving of the extraordinary success of his own ‘Sketch Book.’ Mr. Irving replied:—

Mr. Washington Irving to John Murray.

Paris, October 31st, 1820. My dear Sir,

I have just received your letter of the 26th, which has almost overpowered me with the encomiums it contains. I am astonished at the success of my writings in England,

* Mr. J. K. Paulding was related to Washington Irving, and had taken part with him in preparing the ‘Salmagundi Essays,’ published in 1807.

and can hardly persuade myself that it is not all a dream. Had any one told me a few years since in America that anything I could write would interest such men as Gifford and Byron, I should as readily have believed a fairy tale. If Mr. Gifford will be so good as to suggest what parts of ‘Knickerbocker’ might be curtailed with advantage, I shall endeavour to modify the work accordingly. I am sensible that it is full of faults, and would almost require re-writing to make it what it should be. But I find it very difficult to touch it now—it is so stale with me.

An edition of ‘Knickerbocker’s History of New York’ was, however, published in its original form by Mr. Murray in 1820, to prevent “a spurious edition,” as Irving called it, “being thrown into circulation.” The spurious edition was, however, brought out by Mr. William Wright, of Fleet Street, and Mr. Murray’s venture did not meet with any such success as had attended the ‘Sketch Book.’ The bent of Irving’s mind was towards literary and not commercial pursuits: whatever business affair he touched fell to pieces almost at once. A scheme for navigating the Seine by steamboats failed, and Irving, having thereby lost all the money he had made by his literary efforts, was driven back on his pen again for support. The next book he published through Mr. Murray was ‘Bracebridge Hall,’ which was written with amazing rapidity, 130 pages of the size of the ‘Sketch Book’ having been completed in ten days.

Murray had so much confidence in Washington Irving that he gave him looo guineas for his ‘Bracebridge Hall,’ together with a handsome donation of books. No other bookseller had as yet invaded his priority in publishing Irving’s books; and in the hope that the exclusive privilege might be left to him, he went so far as to offer a large sum for a new work, without even mentioning the name or choosing the subject. After ‘Bracebridge Hall’ had appeared in 1822, Irving went to Paris, and was enjoying himself, when, in November, 1823, Mr. Murray applied the following spur to his lagging pen:—

John Murray to Mr. Washington Irving.

“Mr. H. Payne tells me he is a fellow-lodger with you at Paris, and as he is expected quickly to return, I cannot refrain from sending compliments to you, and from adding an inquiry as to your literary occupations, and what your publisher may be allowed to expect from you in the course of the winter. I am perfectly ready for you, and the sooner you take the field the better.”

Irving’s answer to Murray was, that he should probably have two volumes of a new ‘Sketch Book’ ready for him in the spring. He abandoned, however, his project of a second ‘Sketch Book,’ but proposed to bring out his new work as ‘Tales of a Traveller,’for the two volumes of which Murray at once offered him 1200 guineas without seeing the manuscript. Irving replied to this offer as follows:—

Mr. Washington Irving to John Murray. March 25th, 1824.

“Your offer of 1200 guineas without seeing the MSS. is, I confess, a liberal one, and made in your own gentlemanlike manner; but I would rather you would see the MSS. and make it fifteen hundred. Don’t think me greedy after money; but in fact I have need of all I can get just now, as I can do five pounds’ worth of good with every pound I can spare; and since the world won’t let me live as I please, I find it very expensive to live with the world.”

Two months after the date of this letter, Irving returned to London, and related to his brother Peter, still at Paris, the result of his interview with the publisher:—

“I saw Murray on Saturday, and arranged the business in two minutes. He behaved like a gentleman; told me he had not replied to my last letter because he was in daily expectation of my arrival. That he agreed to my terms without seeing the MSS.; that it could be put to press the moment I was ready, and that it should be printed as fast or as slowly as I pleased. In a word, everything went as smoothly and pleasantly as heart could wish.”*

The ‘Tales of a Traveller’ were published in London in August 1824; and at New York, in parts, about the same time. The critics, both in England and America, were severe in their reviews of the work, and the author’s sensitive nature was very much hurt at this treatment.

Irving did what he could to help his literary fellow-countrymen in England, often entreating Murray to publish American books, but usually without success. In April 1822, Mr. Murray received a communication from Benjamin W. Coles, James Fenimore Cooper’s publisher in New York, respecting the publication of ‘The Spy’ in England. He afterwards received a letter from Mr. Cooper himself to the following effect:—

Mr. Cooper to John Murray.

November 29th, 1822. Sir,

The yellow fever has caused a delay in the appearance of ‘The Pioneer.’ But I now send you matter enough to make two of your volumes. I shall forward the remainder some time before publishing here. I have announced the book as a “descriptive tale,” but perhaps have confined myself too much to describing the scenes of my own youth. I know the present taste is for action and strong excitement; and in this respect I am compelled to acknowledge

* ‘Life and Letters of Washington Irving,’ by Pierre M. Irving, ii. 154.

that the two first volumes are deficient. I however am not without hopes that the third will be thought to make some amends. If there be any value in truth, the pictures are very faithful, and I can safely challenge a scrutiny in this particular. But the world must be left to decide for itself, and I believe it is very seldom that it decides wrong. . . . I ought, in justice to myself to say that, in opposition to a thousand good resolutions, ‘The Pioneer’ has been more hastily and carelessly written than any of my books. Not a line has been copied, and it has gone from my desk to the printers. I have not to this moment been able even to read it. The corrections I have made are from queries of Mr. Wily, or by glancing over the work; so that if you find any errors in grammar, or awkward sentences, you are at liberty to have them altered, though I should wish the latter to be done very sparingly, both because one man’s style seldom agrees with another, and because a similar liberty was abused to a degree in ‘Precaution’ that materially injured the work.

Believe me, yours very faithfully, James F. Cooper .

Mr. Murray, however, though urged by Washington Irving to republish Cooper’s novels in England, eventually declined to do so, especially when he found that they were pirated by other publishers; American authors were then beginning to experience the same treatment in England which English authors have suffered from in America. The wonder was that Washington Irving’s works so long escaped the same doom.

In 1819 Mr. Murray first made the acquaintance of Ugo Foscolo. A native of Zante, descended from a Venetian family who had settled in the Ionian Islands, Foscolo studied at Padua, and afterwards took up his residence at Venice. The ancient aristocracy of that city had been banished by Napoleon Buonaparte, and the conqueror gave over Venice to Austria. Foscolo attacked Buonaparte in his ‘Lettere di Ortis.’ After serving as a volunteer in the Lombard Legion through the disastrous campaign of 1799, Foscolo, on the capitulation of Genoa, retired to Milan, where he devoted himself to literary pursuits. He once more took service—under Napoleon—and in 1805 formed part of the army of England assembled at Boulogne; but soon left the army, went to Pavia (where he had been appointed Professor of Eloquence), and eventually at the age of forty took refuge in England. Here he found many friends, who supported him in his literary efforts. Among others he called upon Mr. Murray, who desired his cooperation in writing for the Quarterly. The article, already mentioned in a previous chapter, on ‘The Poems of the Italians,’ was his first contribution. Mr. Thomas Mitchell, the translator of ‘Aristophanes,’ desired Mr. Murray to give Foscolo his congratulations upon his excellent essay, as well as on his acquaintance with our language.

Mr. Thomas Mitchell to John Murray.

“The first time I had the pleasure of seeing M. Foscolo was at a table d’hôte at Berne. There was something in his physiognomy which very much attracted my notice; and, for some reason or another, I thought that I seemed to be an object of his attention. At table, Foscolo was seated next to a young Hanoverian, between whom and me a very learned conversation had passed on the preceding evening, and a certain degree of acquaintance was cemented in consequence. The table was that day graced with the appearance of some of the Court ladies of Stuttgard, and all passed off with the decorum usually observed abroad, when suddenly, towards the conclusion of the feast a violent hubbub was heard between M. Foscolo and his Hanoverian neighbour, who, in angry terms and with violent gestures, respectively asserted the superior harmonies of Greek and Latin. This ended with the former’s suddenly producing a card, accompanied with the following annunciation: ‘Sir, my name is Ugo Foscolo; I am a native of Greece, and I have resided thirty years in Italy; I therefore think I ought to know something of the matter. This card contains my address, and if you have anything further to say, you know where I am to be found.’ Whether Foscolo’s name or manner daunted the young Hanoverian, or whether he was only a bird of passage, I don’t know, but we saw nothing more of him after that day. Foscolo, after the ladies had retired, made an apology, directed a good deal to me, who, by the forms of the place, happened to be at the head of the table; a considerable degree of intimacy took place between us, and an excellent man I believe him to be, in spite of these little ebullitions.”

Ugo Foscolo, who was eccentric to an excess, and very extravagant, and had many attached friends, though he tried them sorely, seems to have been one of the troubles of Murray’s private as well as publishing life. He had a mania for building, and a mania for ornamentation, but he was very short of money for carrying out his freaks. He thought himself at the same time to be perfectly moderate, simple, and sweet-tempered. He took a house in South Bank, Regent’s Park, which he named Digamma Cottage—from his having contributed to the Quarterly Review an article on the Digamma—and fitted it up in extravagant style.

Lady Dacre, who took a great interest in him, wished to see the sheets of his work before it was published. “I fear,” she writes to Mr. Murray (June 1822), “from what you say, that poor Foscolo, ill-fated and wrong- headed as he is, is losing your valuable friendship by some means or other. I believe his heart is in the right place, whichever way his head may turn; but he must not wrong your kindness and indulgence by his whimsical conduct.” She then enters into corrections of his proposed works on Ricciarda and Essays on Petrarch. She wishes for a number of prospectuses to send to her distinguished friends and desires that he should be encouraged in the preparation of his proposed lectures on Italian Literature. Foscolo could scarcely live at peace with anybody, and, amidst his various altercations, he had to fight a duel. “We are,” Lady Dacre wrote to Murray (December 1823), “to have the whole of Foscolo’s duel to-morrow. He tells me that it is not about a ‘Fair lady:’ thank heaven!”

Foscolo was one of Mr. Murray’s inveterate correspondents—about lectures, about translations, about buildings, about debts, about loans, and about borrowings. On one occasion Mr. Murray received from him a letter of thirteen pages quarto, the first part of which related to a bill of £166 7s. 6d. for the printing of ‘Parga,’ which he asked Mr. Murray to pay. Then he went into a history of his debts, which were manifold. A few sentences of his letter may be worth quoting:—

Mr. Foscolo to John Murray. South Bank, August 20th, 1822.

“During six years (for I landed in England the 10th September, 1816), I have constantly laboured under difficulties the most distressing; no one knows them so well as yourself, because no one came to my assistance with so warm a friendship or with cares so constant and delicate. My difficulties have become more perplexing since the Government both of the Ionian Islands and Italy have precluded even the possibility of my returning to the countries where a slender income would be sufficient, and where I would not be under the necessity of making a degrading use of my faculties. I was born a racehorse; and after near forty years of successful racing, I am now drawing the waggon—nay, to be the teacher of French to my copyists, and the critic of English to my translators!—to write sophistry about criticism, which I always considered a sort of literary quackery, and to put together paltry articles for works which I never read. Indeed, it I have not undergone the doom of almost all individuals whose situation becomes suddenly opposed to their feelings and habits, and if I am not yet a lunatic, I must thank the mechanical strength of my nerves. My nerves, however, will not withstand the threatenings of shame which I have always contemplated with terror. Time and fortune have taught me to meet all other evils with fortitude; but I grow every day more and more a coward at the idea of the approach of a stigma on my character; and as now I must live and die in England, and get the greater part of my subsistence from my labour, I ought to reconcile, if not labour with literary reputation, at least labour and life with a spotless name.”

He then goes on to state that his debts amount to £600 or thereabouts, including a sum of £20 which he owed to Mr. Murray himself. Then he must have the money necessary for his subsistence, and he “finds he cannot live on less than £400 per annum.”

“My apartments,” he continues, “decently furnished, encompass me with an atmosphere of ease and respectability; and I enjoy the illusion of not having fallen into the lowest circumstances. I always declare that I will die like a gentleman, on a decent bed, surrounded by casts (as I cannot buy the marbles) of the Venuses, of the Apollos, and of the Graces, and the busts of great men; nay, even among flowers, and, if possible, with some graceful innocent girl playing an old pianoforte in an adjoining room. And thus dies the hero of my novel. Far from courting the sympathy of mankind, I would rather be forgotten by posterity than give it the gratification of ejaculating preposterous sighs because I died like Camoens and Tasso on the bed of an hospital. And since I must be buried in your country, I am happy in having insured for me the possession during the remains of my life of a cottage built after my plan, surrounded by flowering shrubs, almost within the turnpikes of the town, and yet as quiet as a country-house, and open to the free air. Whenever I can freely dispose of a hundred pounds, I will also build a small dwelling for my corpse, under a beautiful Oriental plane-tree, which I mean to plant next November, and cultivate con amore. So far I am indeed an epicure; in all other things I am the most moderate of men.”

The upshot of the letter is, that he wishes Mr. Murray to let him have £1000, to be repaid in five years, he meanwhile writing articles for the Quarterly—one-half to be left with the publisher, and the remaining half to be added to his personal income. He concludes:—

“In seeking out a way of salvation, I think it incumbent on me to prevent the tyranny of necessity, that I might not be compelled by it to endanger my character and the interest of a friend whose kindness I have always experienced, and whose assistance I am once more obliged to solicit.”

Mr. Murray knew very well that if he were to hand over the £1000 to Foscolo there would be an end to his articles and an end to his lectures. He paid off some of his more pressing embarrassments—£30 to Messrs. Bentley for bills not taken up; £33 7s. to Mr. Kelly the printer; £14. to Mr. Antonini; and £50 to Foscolo’s builder—besides becoming security for £300 to his bankers (with whom Foscolo did business), in order to ensure him a respite for six months. On the other hand, Foscolo agreed to insure his life for £600 as a sort of guarantee. “Was ever” impecunious author “so trusted before”? At this crisis in his affairs many friends came about him and took an interest in the patriot; Mr. Hallam and Mr. Wilbraham offered him money, but he would not accept “gratuities” from them, though he had no objection to accepting their “loans.” Arrangements were then made for Foscolo to deliver a series of lectures on Italian Literature. Everything was settled, the day arrived, the room was crowded with a distinguished assembly, when at the last moment Foscolo appeared without his MS., which he had forgotten.

The course of lectures, however, which had been designed to relieve him from the pressure of his debts, proved successful, and brought him in, it is said, as much as £1000; whereupon he immediately set to work to squander his earnings by giving a public breakfast to his patrons, for which purpose he thought it incumbent on him, amongst other expenses, to make a new approach and a gravelled carriage road to Digamma Cottage.

The lectures, when delivered, were greatly applauded. In September 1823, we find Sir Gore Ouseley writing to Mr. Murray, asking “when we may expect to see in print the lectures which delighted me so much from the mouth of Ugo Foscolo.”

Mr. W. S. Rose was another admirer of Foscolo. Towards the end of 1823 he was busily engaged in translating ‘Orlando Furioso.’ In a letter written by him to Mr Murray he said:—

Mr. Rose to John Murray.

Polygon, Southampton, Dec. 1823. Dear Murray,

The neglect of the enclosures will be attended with no other inconvenience than the delay of the second volume of my ‘Furioso,’* which is a matter of little moment. My friends leave me in Boeotian darkness, and I know nothing of Foscolo’s duel. At any rate, he is now (in the strictest sense of the words) “alive and kicking,” judging him by a letter received from him this morning. I could have made the same report of myself a few days ago, but this weather freezes my liver, and when that mill does not

* Moore, in his diary, mentions a report that “Murray had offered W. Stewart Rose £2000 for a translation of ‘Ariosto.’” This was not the case. Murray published the work in 1823, and suffered considerable loss by the speculation.

grind, I am always more or less of a wretch. This wretchedness, however, which impedes my taking much active exercise, I may as well turn to some account, and will therefore beg you to tell the printer I should now like to proceed with the same expedition as in the first volume. I enclose the revised sheets, and will furnish the remaining MSS. in a few days.

Yours very truly, W. S. Rose .

When sending in the last revise of the fifth volume of ‘Orlando Furioso’ he wrote to Mr. Murray:—

“I have now washed my hands of printer’s ink. A thousand thanks for the loan of sundry books conveyed to me by my doctor. Did you ever read, by-the-bye,’Klinius’s Journey to the World Underground,’ where doctors prescribe books instead of medicine, and where the author was cured of a long fit of sleeplessness by the perusal of Dr. Day’s Sermons? This is the way that some people go to church for the sake of having a sound sleep.”

Ugo Foscolo lived on credit to the end of his life, surrounded by all that was luxurious and beautiful. How he contrived it, no one knew, for his resources remained at the lowest ebb. Perhaps his friends helped him, for English Liberals of good means regarded as a martyr in the cause of freedom, one who would never bow the knee to Baal, and had dared the first Napoleon when his very word was law. But Foscolo’s friends without doubt became tired of his extravagance and his licentious habits, and fell away from him. Disease at last found him out; he died of dropsy at Turnham Green, near Hammersmith, in 1827, when only in the fiftieth year of his age, and was buried in Chiswick churchyard; but in June 1871 his body was exhumed and conveyed to Florence, where he was buried in Santa Croce, between the tomb of Alfieri and the monument of Dante.

Lady Caroline Lamb had continued to keep up her intimacy with Mr. Murray; but now that she was preparing a new work for the press, her correspondence increased. ‘While he was at Wimbledon during summer, she occasionally met literary friends at his house. She had already published ‘Glenarvon,’ the hero of which was supposed to represent Lord Byron, and was now ready with ‘Penruddock.’ “I am in great anxiety,” she wrote to Mr. Murray “about your not informing me what Gifford says. I think it might be a civil way of giving me my death-warrant—if ‘Penruddock’ does not.”

Whether the criticism of Mr. Gifford was too severe, or whether Mr. Murray was so much engaged in business and correspondence as to take no notice of Lady Caroline Lamb’s communication, does not appear; but she felt the neglect, and immediately followed it up with another letter as follows:—

Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray.

December 8th, 1822. My dear and most obstinately silent Sir,

From one until nine upon Tuesday I shall be at Melbourne House waiting for you; but if you wish to see the prettiest woman in England,—besides myself and William,—be at Melbourne House at quarter to six, at which hour we dine; and if you will come at half-past one, or two, or three, to say you will dine and to ask me to forgive your inexorable and inhuman conduct, pray do, for I arrive at twelve in that said home and leave it at nine the ensuing morning. What can have happened to you that you will not write?

The next work her ladyship prepared was a novel entitled ‘Ada Reis.’ On this subject her husband, William Lamb (afterwards Lord Melbourne), entered into a correspondence with Mr. Murray as follows:—

The Honble. William Lamb to John Murray.

December 20th, 1822.

The incongruity of, and objections to, the story of ‘Ada Reis’ can only be got over by power of writing, beauty of sentiment, striking and effective situation, &c. If Mr. Gifford thinks there is in the first two volumes anything of excellence sufficient to overbalance their manifest faults, I still hope that he will press upon Lady Caroline the absolute necessity of carefully reconsidering and revising the third volume, and particularly the conclusion of the novel. Mr. Gifford, I dare say, will agree with me that since the time of Lucian all the representations of the infernal regions, which have been attempted by satirical writers,, such as ‘Fielding’s Journey from this World to the Next,’ have been feeble and flat. The sketch in ‘Ada Reis’ is commonplace in its observations and altogether insufficient, and it would not do now to come with a decisive failure in an attempt of considerable boldness. I think, if it were thought that anything could be done with the novel, and that the faults of its design and structure can be got over, that I could put her in the way of writing up this part a little, and giving it something of strength, spirit, and novelty, and of making it at once more moral and more interesting. I wish you would communicate these my hasty suggestions to Mr. Gifford, and he will see the propriety of pressing Lady Caroline to take a little more time to this part of the novel. She will be guided by his authority, and her fault at present is to be too hasty and too impatient of the trouble of correcting and recasting what is faulty.

‘Ada Reis’ was published in March 1823, and shortly afterwards Lady Caroline wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray.

Brocket Hall.

Lady Morgan says, after the severe castigation you gave her once, you must not refuse the first favour she has asked you, but send her ‘Ada Reis’ immediately. Now I wish you could come and see this place in its full beauty; but I conclude you will not. Pray, did William send the draft for Foscolo of ten guineas? How is Gifford? Pray send me some news and some books. Mrs. Opie has sent me a very complimentary letter about ‘Ada Reis.’”

May 1823.

“I am really too much delighted with my books, and we all laughed rather more than was seemly at nobody’s works. Oh! if you would come and see Brocket in its beauty, but I fear you cannot. If there is yet time, do tell Captain Lyon that I, and others far better than I am, are enchanted with his book.* Do pray write one line to me and tell me when you are to come, how my prettiest song out of ‘Graham Hamilton’ [another novel of her ladyship’s] is published. Is it not rather odd?—as if written on her death-bed by Mrs. Jordan. The words begin— ‘If thou couldst know.’ It is published by Addison, the music by T. Close.”

The politics of the Quarterly Review did not in the least interfere with Mr. Murray’s publishing for the leading Whigs as well as for the Tories. He had published for Lord Holland and William and George Lamb, and now he was about to publish for Lord John Russell, who, in April 1823, wrote, intimating his intention of preparing a general sketch of the history of Europe, with its commerce, letters, and manners. He proposed to commence the history from the taking of Constantinople and to continue it down to the breaking out of the French Revolution. It would fill six or seven quarto volumes about the size of Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall.’ He proposed that he should receive from the publisher a fourth of the price of every copy sold. The work seems to have been begun, because the proofs were ordered to be sent to Woburn, and the first volume of ‘The Affairs of Europe’ was completed by the end of 1824.

* ‘Private Journal during the recent Voyage of Discovery under Captain Parry, 1824.’

Lord John Russell to John Murray. September 21st, 1824.

“At the same time it is fair to say that the plan has been so completely altered since it was first mentioned that Mr. Murray must consider himself entirely free to renounce the engagement, which, if he chooses, he may do without the smallest hesitation. If not, he is to consider that this is one of two volumes which will bring the history of Europe from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of 1763. After the first volume either party to be at liberty to change the terms, and no stipulation whatever to be made for any other part of the ‘History of Europe.’”

The first volume was published without the author’s name on the title-page, and a few years later another volume was published, but it remained an unfinished work. Lord John was an ambitious and restless author; without steady perseverance in any branch of literature; he went from poems to tragedies, from tragedies to memoirs, then to history, tales, translations of part of the ‘Odyssey,’ essays (by the Gentleman who left his Lodgings), and then to memoirs and histories again. Mr. Croker said of his ‘Don Carlos’: “It is not easy to find any poetry, or even oratory, of the present day delivered with such cold and heavy diction, such distorted tropes and disjointed limbs of similes worn to the bones long ago.”

Another work that excited greater interest than Lord John Russell’s anonymous history was Mr. James Morier’s ‘Hajji Baba.’ Mr. Morier had in his youth travelled through the East, especially in Persia, where he held a post under Sir Gore Ouseley, then English Ambassador. On his return to England, he published accounts of his travels; but his ‘Hajji Baba’ was more read than any other of his works. Sir Walter Scott was especially pleased with it, and remarked that ‘Hajji Baba’ might be termed the Oriental ‘Gil Blas.’ Mr. Morier afterwards published ‘The Adventures of Hajji Baba in England,’ as well as other works of an Eastern character. The following letter, written by the Persian Envoy in England, Mirza Abul Hassan, shows the impression created by English society on a foreigner in April 1824:—

Letter from the Persian Envoy, Mirza Abul Hassan, to the London Gentleman without, who lately wrote letter to him and ask very much to give answer.

April 3rd, 1824. Sir, My Lord,

When you write to me some time ago to give my thought of what I see good and bad this country, that time I not speak English very well. Now I read, I write much little better. Now I give to you my think. In this country bad not too much, everything very good. But suppose I not tell something little bad, then you say I tell all flattery—therefore I tell most bad thing. I not like such crowd in evening party every night. In cold weather not very good, now hot weather, much too bad. I very much astonish every day now much hot than before, evening parties much crowd than before. Pretty beautiful ladies come sweat, that not very good. I always afraid some old lady in crowd come dead, that not very good, and spoil my happiness. I think old ladies after 85 years not come to evening party, that much better. Why for take so much trouble? Some other thing rather bad. Very beautiful young lady she got ugly fellow for husband, that not very good, very shocking. I ask Sr Gore [Sir Gore Ouseley] why for this. He says me—“perhaps he very good man, not handsome; no matter, perhaps he got too much money, perhaps got title.” I say I not like that, all very shocking. This all bad. I know now I say good. English people all very good people. All very happy. Do what they like, say what like, write in newspaper what like. I love English people very much, they very civil to me. I tell my King English love Persian very much. English King best man in world, he love his people very good much; he speak very kind to me, I love him very much. Queen very best woman I ever saw. Prince of Wales such a fine elegant beautiful man. I not understand English enough proper to praise him, he too great for my language. I respect him same as my own King. I love him much better, his manner all same as talisman and charm. All the Princes very fine men, very handsome men, very sweet words, very affable. I like all too much. I think the ladies and gentlemen this country most high rank, high honour, very rich, except two or three most good, very kind to inferior peoples. This very good. I go to see Chelsea. All old men sit on grass in shade of fine tree, fine river run by, beautiful place, plenty to eat, drink, good coat, everything very good. Sir Gore he tell me King Charles and King Jame. I say Sir Gore, They not Musselman, but I think God love them very much. I think God he love the King very well for keeping up that charity. Then I see one small regiment of children go to dinner, one small boy he say thanks to God for eat, for drink, for clothes, other little boys they all answer Amen. Then I cry a little, my heart too much pleased. This all very good for two things—one thing, God very much please; two things, soldiers fight much better, because see their good King take care of old wounded fathers and little children. Then I go to Greenwich, that too good place, such a fine sight make me a little sick for joy. All old men so happy, eat dinner, so well, fine house, fine beds—all very good. This very good country. English ladies very handsome, very beautiful. I travel great deal. I go Arabia, I go Calcutta, Hyderabad, Poonah, Bombay, Georgia, Armenia, Constantinople, Malta, Gibraltar. I see best Georgia, Circassian, Turkish, Greek ladies, but nothing not so beautiful as English ladies, all very clever, speak French, speak English, speak Italian, play music very well, sing very good. Very glad for me if Persian ladies like them. But English ladies speak such sweet words. I think tell a little story—that not very good. One thing more I see but I not understand that thing good or bad. Last Thursday I see some fine horses, fine carriages, thousand people go to look that carriages. I ask why for? They say me, that gentleman on boxes they drive their own carriages. I say why for take so much trouble? They say me he drive very well; that very good thing. It rain very hard, some lord some gentleman he get very wet. I say why he not go inside? They tell me good coachman not mind get wet every day, will be much ashamed if go inside; that I not understand.

Sir, my Lord, good-night, Abul Hassan .

Persia was at this time attracting a considerable amount of attention, and Sir John Malcolm, who had recently returned from India, resolved to supplement his ‘History of Persia,’ first published in 1815, by an account of the manners and customs of the natives, and his own experiences among them. In these ‘Sketches of Persia,’ remarks a critic, “the people are presented with all the interest but without the caricature of our amusing friend ‘Hajji Baba.’”

Sir John Malcolm to John Murray.

June 12th, 1824. My dear Sir,

I saw Mr. Gifford yesterday, and from what passed I am determined to publish what will make one, or rather two, small volumes of from 250 to 300 pages, of the size of Walter Scott’s ‘Tales.’ . . . My present idea is to give the work the general name of ‘Oriental Sketches,’ to designate in a short advertisement its character, to characterise the first part as Persia, and to promise others on India. I could proceed with this series, provided the work succeeds. At my leisure I could, in the course of next year, give two or three volumes on India. The materials are all so arranged and prepared that little labour is required. . . . I will sell an edition, editions, or copyright. The terms of the bargain, if you are not confident, may be made progressive with success. I will not go halves, being confident myself; and I will, if I do not sell, publish myself. Let me know, under all views, what you think of the matter, and what you will do.

Yours faithfully, J. Malcolm .

Mr. Murray continued his correspondence with Mrs. Graham, who was now residing at the Court of Brazil, and on intimate terms with the family of the Emperor. In fact, she taught the young princesses English, French, and other languages, and superintended their education. From Rio de Janeiro she wrote to Mr. Murray, informing him that she had a journal ready for publication on her return to England, illustrated with drawings, on the subject of her travels in Brazil. The work was duly brought out under the title of ‘Residence in Chili’ in 1822, and ‘Voyage to Brazil’ in 1823.

While at Rio de Janeiro, Mrs. Graham became intimate with that naval hero, Lord Cochrane.

Mrs. Graham to John Murray.

“The fall of Bahia, to Lord Cochrane, has done something for the immediate prosperity and tranquillity of the country, and we are anxiously looking for his return. He is a most extraordinary man, as gentle as he is determined, as kind-hearted as he is courageous, and as generous as either. I grudge him to these foreign services, and hope before I die to see him where he should be.”

Mrs. Graham’s desires were fulfilled, for, in 1831, Lord Cochrane was restored to his honours in the English peerage as Earl of Dundonald.

Mr. Murray also published about the same time (1823) ‘Captain Cochrane’s Pedestrian Journey through Russia and Siberian Tartary.’ It was edited and corrected by Mr. Barrow; “the remarks respecting the abuses and remedies in Kamchatka having been curtailed, and other parts taken out.” The work soon went to a second edition, because of its adventures and occasional eccentricities.

Mr. Murray invariably consulted Mr. Barrow as to any works on voyages or travels he was required to publish, and found him a faithful adviser. Sometimes he was, like the publisher himself, disappointed at the sale of a book, for books, like plays, are a lottery.

Mr. J. Barrow to John Murray. March 28th, 1823.

“I need not tell you that caprice rather than merit governs the sale of a work. If instances are wanting, I might quote those of Belzoni and Hamilton.* The first absolute trumpery when put in competition with the second; yet the former, I believe, sold about ten times the number of the latter.”

In 1822 there appeared a work which was to some extent the forerunner of those handbooks which for over sixty years have been so intimately associated with Mr. Murray’s name. The Continent of Europe was now thrown open, and the number of Englishmen rapidly increased who thought it necessary to make the Grand Tour. Lord Byron’s ‘Childe Harold’ had given an immense impetus to foreign travel, and though it was in itself a guide-book, with the historical illustrations furnished by Mr. Hobhouse, yet a special manual, giving, in compendious form, all information relative to routes, methods of travel, passports, hotels, and money, was rendered more and more necessary from year to year.

Mrs. Marianna Starke was the first to devote her attention to a ‘Guide for Travellers on the Continent.’ She first brought out, in 1820, her ‘Travels on the Continent,’ which at Mr. Murray’s suggestion she put into the form of a Guide, and the book met with so much success that she

* This reference probably refers to Walter Hamilton’s ‘Description of Hindostan and adjacent Countries,’ published a few years before.

proceeded with its improvement. In June 1822, we find her in communication with Mr. Murray as to its development and alteration, and the addition of a map of Europe. The first issue had described France by way of Dijon, the Jura Mountains, the Simplon, Chamouni; and in her new edition she added Florence, Modena, the Apennines, Rome, Naples, Herculaneum, Pompeii and Sorrento.

About this time Mr. Murray also published Crofton Croker’s ‘Fairy Legends and Traditions of the South of Ireland,’ for the first series of which he gave the author £80, but the work proved so popular that he gave him £300 for the second series. Another little book published about this time has a curious history, and illustrates the lottery of book publishing. Mrs. Markham’s ‘History of England’ was first published by Constable, but it fell stillborn from the press. Mr. Murray, discerning the merit of the work in 1824, bought the remainder of 333 copies from Constable, and had it revised, corrected, and enlarged, and brought out in an entirely new form. He placed it in his list of school books, and pushed it among the teachers throughout the country, until at length it obtained a very large and regular circulation. The book has subsequently undergone frequent revision, and down to the present date it continues to be a great favourite, especially in ladies’ schools.

Allan Cunningham, who had already obtained some eminence as a poet and dramatist, made the acquaintance of Mr. Murray through Mr. Chantrey, the sculptor, of whose establishment he was the chief clerk and overseer. The first letter we find of a long and intimate correspondence between Allan Cunningham and Mr. Murray is dated January 1823, in which he offers “a medal head of Sir Walter Scott by a young Scottish lad of the name of Bain.” He proceeds to say that he was “afraid Lord Byron felt displeased with me—an ordinary person—for presenting my little book of verse to one so distinguished by rank and genius as himself, for he has taken no notice of it.”

Allan Cunningham was about this time meditating a drama or a romance, as will be seen from the following letter to Mr. Murray on the subject, but it does not appear that the proposal was accepted:—

Mr. Allan Cunningham to John Murray.

Eccleston Street, Pimlico, April 26th, 1823. Dear Sir,

I have to thank you for your very welcome present of our pleasant historian of New York; I have seldom found so much amusement in a book of that kind, and certainly never met with illustrations* which embodied so truly the peculiar and happy spirit of the author.

I am afraid you will think I take an ungenerous advantage of your kindness in adding to my thanks something about myself. I have long felt like Burns the wish to write “a Book or sing a song at least,” and this I have accomplished with more success than I had any right to expect; but here I have no wish to stop. I am anxious to put forth all my strength, my knowledge of nature, and character, and all my sympathy with the purer feelings and superstitious beliefs of my native land. I wish to put them forth in a Poem or a Prose Romance. Something of this kind it has long been my wish to do, and Sir Walter Scott was so good as urge me to imagine a Romantic Drama, and fill it with lyrics; and he went farther—he pointed out a subject. It is true that in poetry and also in prose there are giants in the land, and by no person could such a circumstance be more felt than by the illustrious friend who gave me this counsel. To a mind which thinks and sees and feels for itself there is enough of originality in nature, and, possest as my heart is with an impressive

* They were by Charles Leslie, R.A.

subject, I would like to evoke the demon by poetry or by prose.

I could certainly find a way to the world for such a work as I shall write, and also obtain a moderate recompense; but need I tell you the reasons which induce me to think of you? The external grace which you cast over all your productions, the certainty of their winning public favour if they deserve it, and the liberality which you show to all those, and they are many, who are so fortunate as walk in the highway to fame, of which the English name is Albemarle Street.

I know that to many, a Book written by one in humble life suggests immediate images of rudeness and vulgarity. It is true I have not been so well educated as some of the foremost favourites of literature; but there are two kinds of knowledge and two kinds of taste—of the latter there is the natural and the acquired—the first is the more spirited monitor and the latter the dullest. Of education there is the kind infused by the stripes or the persuasion of a teacher, and that which is obtained by observing men, and musing on nature and seeking for knowledge among the works of the wise and the gifted which are open to all. In such a school has my mind been disciplined, and I can see nothing to interpose between a scholar of this sort and the greatest purity of thought and delicacy of expression. I have read much and observed much and stored my mind with the characters and feelings and actions and superstitious beliefs of the poetic people of a region into which the muse has but partially penetrated.

If you put faith in me, may I ask what encouragement you would offer for a Dramatic Romance in blank verse of three hundred octavo pages, or a Prose Romance in three volumes.

I remain, Dear Sir, Your very faithful Servant, Allan Cunningham .

The year 1824, as has been shown in a previous chapter, marked a crisis in the history of the Quarterly Review, and it becomes necessary to record the events to which the resignation of Mr. Gifford led.

CHAPTER XXV. GIFFORD’S RETIREMENT FROM THE EDITORSHIP OF THE ‘QUARTERLY’—AND DEATH.

It had for some time been evident, as has been shown in a previous chapter, that Gifford was becoming physically incapable of carrying on the Editorship of the Quarterly Review, but an occasional respite from the pressure of sickness, as well as his own unwillingness to abandon his connection with a work which he regarded with paternal affection, and Murray’s difficulty in finding a worthy successor, combined to induce him to remain at his post.

He accordingly undertook to carry on his editorial duties till the publication of the 60th number, aided and supported by the active energy of Barrow and Croker, who, in conjunction with the publisher, did most of the necessary drudgery.

Mr. Murray had no lack of advisers in making his selection of a new Editor. Cohen, D’Israeli, Milman and others had suggestions to offer, but the problem remained for many months unsolved. Croker and Barrow were debarred, by their official positions at the Admiralty, from undertaking the duties; some contributors recommended Southey; Southey, on the other hand, had, so far back as 1822, urged the merits of John Taylor Coleridge, a frequent contributor to the Review, who was then rising to prominence at the Bar; this recommendation was supported by Mr. Barrow; while D’Israeli at the same time wrote the following words of counsel:—

Mr. I. D’Israeli to John Murray.

South Weald, Brentwood, Essex, Friday, Oct., 1822. Dear Murray,

I have been most anxious to hear of Gifford, after his late alarming attack—his state, I find, still is most precarious!

I truly sympathise with you in your important difficulties on the choice of a successor. I am well acquainted with all the objections which may rise even whenever one shall be fixed on—yet some one must; and the earlier the better, that in case Gifford survives, he may have the advantage of consultation and some advice, which the present Editor only can give.

It is in the compass of a hope that Gifford, by close care, may live in the artificial atmosphere of his apartment a considerable time. I have known more than one case—the parties, indeed, were much younger and more perpendicular—where, always in the most imminent danger, they lived many years in an apartment where heat was regulated. I doubt if he has the most skilful medical aid.

In case you fix on an Editor before I see you, let me request you would do it guardedly—so as not to fetter yourself—you may easily do this because you are enabled to make as splendid an offer as the annals of literature ever recorded. It is strange to me that no one should occur to you in your own wide circle, as I imagine it to be. I would, in this dilemma, make a list of the more eminent writers. I would carefully sift that list, at least twice, and then I think you might fix on two or three of whom a trial might be made. What you want is a literary man, with Gifford’s habits. Be cautious of one man whom we know. If Gifford’s state is unequal to overlook the next number, can’t you put the Review in commission, by giving articles to several persons to edit? The Review may be delayed, but it would possibly hurt it, to suspend the publication.

Yours most truly, I. D’I.

For two years, however, Mr. Gifford’s attack of pain and sickness, though frequent, were not continuous, and as his bodily infirmities had not impaired his intellectual abilities he was able to work at the Review. In sending in the MS. of an article, Barrow wrote to Murray on Aug. 11th, 1823:—

“Gifford was in a craving humour, and wished very much for what I now send (though I intended it for a future number); but the rainy weather has permitted me to finish it. It is well peppered, and if Gifford will add some of his double-refined salt, I have no doubt we shall work up a well-seasoned devil for Jonathan to digest over his Whisky.”

The work reviewed was ‘Wm. Faux, an English Farmer: Memorable Days in America, being a Journal of a Tour in the United States,’ and that Gifford’s double-refined salt had not lost its savour is proved by the article, which is thus referred to in Allibone’s Dictionary: “This is a ‘Memorable’ work, as being the occasion of two spicy reviews; the first in the London Quarterly, said to be by Gifford; the other, in which the criticism of the Quarterly is roughly handled in the North-American Review, by Edward Everett.”

The following letter is interesting both as giving Gifford’s opinion of his own condition, and as affording a testimony to the warm friendship which still subsisted between him and Canning. Canning had written that he was in “bed with the Gout,” and Gifford replied:—

Mr. Gifford to Rt. Hon. G. Canning.

December 13th, 1823. My Dear Canning,

I wish you had a pleasanter bedfellow; but here am I on the sofa with a cough, and a very disagreeable associate I find it. Old T. Moore, I think, died all but his voice, and my voice is nearly dead before me; in other respects, I am much as I was when you saw me, and this weather is in my favour. . . . I have promised Murray to try to carry on the Review to the 60th number; the 58th is now nearly finished. This seems a desperate promise, and beyond it I will not, cannot go; for, at best, as the old philosopher said, I am dying at my ease, as my complaint has taken a consumptive turn. The vultures already scent the carcase, and three or four Quarterly Reviews are about to start. One is to be set up by Haygarth, whom I think I once mentioned to you as talked of to succeed me, but he is now in open hostility to Murray; another is to be called the Westminster Quarterly Review, and will, if I may judge from the professions of impartiality, be a decided Opposition Journal. They will all have their little day, perhaps, and then drop into the grave of their predecessors. The worst is that we cannot yet light upon a fit and promising successor.

Ever, my dear Canning, Faithfully and affectionately yours, William Gifford .

The following summer, however, found him still in harness and fully alive to the duties of a critic. In the course of his revision of Canon Hughes’ article on Washington Irving’s Tales, he detected some blunders on the part of Irving, who wrote Cathedral Towns; but Cathedrals make cities. “He also speaks of Prebends. There is no such person; for Prebend is an office, and the holder is a Prebendary.”

Mr. Gifford to John Murray. Aug. 1st, 1824.

“I am sorry that he has taken it into his mind to ridicule our provincial clergy, of whose character and function he seems to be totally ignorant. It is not a picture of the present times, but of the days of Queen Anne. At the same time there is much to be praised in the book. All that Buckthorne says of his mother is beautiful, and what he says of his father, his uncle, and cousin, is also very good indeed. Why does our young friend give so revolting a picture of an English nobleman at Terracina? Our travelling city and county squires are rude and ignorant enough, and cannot be lashed too much; but vulgarity and impudence are not the characteristics of an English peer; and then to contrast him with the politeness of Italians and Poles. Alas! alas! it was not thus that Mr. Irving obtained his deserved reputation. Do not tell Mr. I. what I have written, but make your own use of it.* If my name be mentioned, let it be tenderly, for he is a real favourite of mine. Let me have two copies of the revise of the article on the West Indies; for what I have by me is so scratched and bedevilled that the mother who bore it would not know it. You will be sorry to hear that my sight is passing away. I have clouds that overhang my eyes for nearly half a minute together. The glare here is too strong for me.”

A few days later, he mentions the article by Sir Walter Scott, ‘On the Correspondence of Lady Suffolk.’ Scott had not contributed to the Quarterly for many years, and Gifford welcomed the paper.

“It came at last,” he wrote to Murray (9th August, 1824), “and with it came the letters which I had to read, though I cannot use my eyes now long at a time. Scott’s paper is a clever, sensible thing—the work of a man who knows what he is about.”

On the following day he wrote to Murray:—

“I have an almost constant pain in my side, so that I can sit up but at intervals, and my breath is as bad as ever.”

This state of matters could not go on much longer; sometimes a quarter passed without a number appearing;

* The article appeared in No. 62, after Mr. Coleridge had assumed the Editorship.

in 1824 only two Quarterlies appeared—No. 60 due in January, but only published in August; and No. 61, due in April, but published in December. An expostulation came from Croker to Murray (23rd January, 1824):—

“Have you made up your mind about an editor. Southey has written to me on the subject, as if you had, and as if he knew your choice; I do not like to answer him before I know what I am to say. Will you dine at Kensington on Sunday at 6?”

Southey had long been meditating about the editorship. It never appears to have been actually offered to him, but his name, as we have already seen, was often mentioned in connection with it. He preferred, however, going on with his own works and remaining a contributor only. Politics, too, may have influenced him, for we find him writing to Mr. Murray on Dec. 15, 1824—“The time cannot be far distant when the Q. R. must take its part upon a most momentous subject, and choose between Mr. Canning and the Church. I have always considered it as one of the greatest errors in the management of the Review that it should have been silent upon that subject so long.” So far as regarded his position as a contributor, Southey expressed his opinion to Murray explicitly:—

Mr. Southey to John Murray. Oct. 25th, 1824.

“No future Editor, be he who he may, must expect to exercise the same discretion over my papers which Mr. Gifford has done. I will at any time curtail what may be deemed too long, and consider any objections that may be made, with a disposition to defer to them when it can be done without sacrificing my own judgment upon points which may seem to me important. But my age an (I may add without arrogance) the rank which I hold in literature entitle me to say that I will never again write under the correction of any one.”

Dr. Ireland, Dean of Westminster, wrote to Murray:—

Dr. Ireland to John Murray. Islip, Oxford, July 8th, 1824.

“As to your own affair—the Review—the future management of it will be a matter of much anxiety to determine. For the fifteen years of Mr. Gifford’s management, I have had the happiness of being his steady and affectionate assistant. I have an article with me now here, and it will be with particular feelings that I shall send it to him, in a few days, at Ramsgate. It will be the last, or the last but one, that I shall ever send in this manner; and while I am persuaded that he ought to withdraw from the management, I look with some melancholy upon this concluding scene of it. I have sometimes thought that if there were some interval between the 60th number and the commencement of a new series, the public might be stimulated to do something towards it. The voice of Society calls strongly for a continuation in some way; and if this impulse were given to the public mind, there might be some extraordinary effort to come to your assistance. This, however, is altogether a matter of experiment.”

Mr. Cohen* endorsed the recommendation of D’Israeli, already referred to, that Mr. Gifford should be relieved from the more laborious functions of an editor, and that the editorship should be put in commission, under Mr. Gifford’s inspection and control.

Mr. Francis Cohen to John Murray. Aug. 26th, 1824.

“In the present age the task of directing the public taste is not the most important part of the duty of a reviewer. In the present state of society, intellectual cultivation is

* Afterwards Sir Francis Palgrave.

so extensively diffused that the opinion of the ‘Critic’ is necessarily anticipated by the sound judgment of the world at large. The present age is characterized by its activity and energy. Science advances with uninterrupted rapidity. New sources of knowledge are constantly bursting forth. And there is a strong and decided disposition in all parties to encourage all practicable and possible ameliorations in the general policy of the country. Hence the most important part of the duty of the contributors to a periodical publication is that of supplying the public with the facts and the current information which they need.”

All this was very important and useful advice, but it did not settle the question of how the Quarterly was in future to be conducted. At last came the communication of Mr. Barrow to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. John Barrow to John Murray.

Sept. 24th, 1824.

I saw Gifford last night, who is in good spirits and much pleased with a letter which you had written to him; but I find he is completely decided to give in, and advises—what you will, of course, do as soon as convenient—to call a few of your friends together to arrange for the future conducting of the Quarterly. He is quite of opinion that the gentleman in the North [Southey] would, in a few numbers, ruin the Review if he had the management.

Yours always, J. Barrow .

When Gifford had finally determined to resign, he wrote to Mr. Canning (September 8, 1824) the following interesting letter:—

Mr. W. Gifford to the Rt. Hon. G. Canning.

Sept. 8th, 1824. My Dear Canning,

I have laid aside my Regalia, and King Gifford, first of the name, is now no more, as Sir Andrew Aguecheek says, “than an ordinary mortal or a Christian.” It is necessary to tell you this, for, with the exception of a dark cloud which has come over Murray’s brow, no prodigies in earth or air, as far as I have heard, have announced it.

It is now exactly sixteen years ago since your letter invited or encouraged me to take the throne. I did not mount it without a trembling fit; but I was promised support, and I have been nobly supported. As far as regards myself, I have borne my faculties soberly, if not meekly. I have resisted, with undeviating firmness, every attempt to encroach upon me, every solicitation of publisher, author, friend, or friend’s friend, and turned not a jot aside for power or delight. In consequence of this integrity of purpose, the Review has long possessed a degree of influence, not only in this, but in other countries hitherto unknown; and I have the satisfaction, at this late hour, of seeing it in its most palmy state. No number has sold better than the sixtieth.

But there is a sad tale to tell. For the last three years I have perceived the mastery which disease and age were acquiring over a constitution battered and torn at the best, and have been perpetually urging Murray to look about for a successor, while I begged Copleston, Blomfield, and others to assist the search. All has been ineffectual. Murray, indeed, has been foolishly flattering himself that I might be cajoled on from number to number, and has not, therefore, exerted himself as he ought to have done; but the rest have been in earnest. Do you know any one? I once thought of Robert Grant; but he proved timid, and indeed his saintly propensities would render him suspected. Reginald Heber, whom I should have preferred to any one, was snatched from me for a far higher object.

I have been offered a Doctor’s Degree, and when I declined it, on account of my inability to appear in public, my own college (Exeter) most kindly offered to confer it on me in private; that is, at the Rector’s lodgings. This, too, I declined, and begged the Dean of Westminster, who has a living in the neighbourhood, to excuse me as handsomely as he could. It might, for aught I know, be a hard race between a shroud and a gown which shall get me first; at any rate, it was too late for honours.

Faithfully and affectionately yours, William Gifford .

Mr. J. T. Coleridge had long been regarded as the most eligible successor to Mr. Gifford, and on him the choice now fell; but from the following note it would appear that the first advances towards his appointment were made, prematurely, by Coleridge’s friends:—

John Murray to Mr. John T. Coleridge.

May, 1823.

Mr. Gifford is now almost as well, certainly as vigorous in intellect, as ever I knew him. He goes to Ramsgate, as usual, next month. During his life no change is likely to take place; and when any decision is necessary it will not, as I always stated, depend upon me. The subject should not therefore be allowed to influence in the slightest degree your other views and arrangements.

Yours, faithfully, John Murray .

When the post was actually vacant, and the formal decision had been made, Mr. Murray wrote:—

John Murray to Mr. John T. Coleridge.

Albemarle Street, Thursday. Dec. 9th, 1824. My dear Sir,

The kindness and delicacy of your conduct, during our communications respecting the Editorship of the Quarterly Review, were such as to fix, definitely, my own wishes upon the subject. I am therefore most happy in now finding myself completely free, to testify my sincere esteem, by offering you that appointment; and most happy shall I be to learn that no circumstances have intervened to prevent your allowing me again to renew our friendly negotiations. Should your determination be favourable to my wishes, I would then ask if, in the absence of our friend Archdeacon Lyall, it will be perfectly agreeable to you to receive a farther communication from Mr. Locker. With unfeigned regard,

I remain, my dear sir, Most faithfully yours, J. M.

To this, Mr. Coleridge replied:—

Mr. John T. Coleridge to John Murray.

Temple, Dec. 10th, 1824. My dear Sir,

The subject of your note is not quite a new one to me; and therefore I answer it sooner than, from its great importance to me, I otherwise should. Two years, I think, have nearly elapsed since our conversations respecting the Editorship of the Quarterly; in that interval I have made advances enough in my profession to keep me in good heart about it; but they are of a nature which certainly, at present, and I think for a long time, are likely not to be incompatible with the labours of the Review. I do not, however, disguise from myself that I run some risk in accepting your kind and flattering offer; but I have made up my mind to that.

When, indeed, I consider the magnitude of the concern to you, and its importance to the public, it is impossible for me not to feel much diffidence as to the manner in which I shall meet your expectations, and those of a great number of kind friends. However, I cannot suppose that you have not well weighed what you know and have heard of me, before you make the offer; and I can only say that the Review, so long as I conduct it, shall have, what it is entitled to, my best exertions in its support.

There is no one whom I would sooner meet on the subject than Mr. Locker; and I will see him at any hour he pleases, either here, at the Athenæum, or in Albemarle Street. But the tone of your note makes me feel confident that there will be no points of difficulty to arrange; and perhaps we could settle everything as easily in person. Time seems to me important.

I shall dine with you with great pleasure on Thursday next, and remain, my dear Sir,

Very truly yours, J. T. Coleridge .

Mr. Murray forwarded the reply of Mr. Coleridge to Mr. Gifford, accompanied by the following note:—

John Murray to Mr. Gifford.

Whitehall Place, Dec. 11th, 1824. My dear Sir,

I shall not attempt to express the feelings with which I communicate the enclosed answer to the proposal which I suspect it would have been thought contemptible in me any longer to have delayed, and all that I can find to console myself with is the hope that I may be able to evince my gratitude to you during life, and to your memory, if it so please the Almighty that I am to be the survivor.

I am your obliged and faithful Servant, John Murray .

Further negotiations between the publisher and the new Editor were carried on by the intervention of Mr. F. H. Locker, and four days later Mr. Coleridge wrote as follows:—

Mr. John T. Coleridge to John Murray.

Dec. 14th, 1824. My dear Sir,

I have seen Mr. Locker this afternoon, and he has communicated to me what had passed between him and you; upon all parts of the propositions, which he made in your name, I will only say in a simple sentence that I am perfectly satisfied. I think them honourable both to the maker and receiver.

You will believe that I have the cause much at heart; and as some time must elapse before I perfectly see my way, I am anxious to lose no time in acquiring all the preliminary knowledge necessary. I believe he told you that I should be in the King’s Bench to-morrow; but I find that a cause in which I am engaged, and which stood for to-morrow, is appointed the first on Thursday; I shall be therefore in chambers all the morning, if you can make it convenient to call on me. I know how much you are occupied; and therefore when I mention that I should prefer an early hour, it is only on the supposition that one hour may be as convenient to you as another. My reason for the preference is that till I have seen you I cannot well call on Mr. Gifford, which I am anxious to do at the first moment possible; for I would not for the world have him think me failing in attention to him.

If your occupations prevent you from coming so far this way to-morrow, will you order to be sent to my house any papers you may have, or the last publishers’ lists. You know my address is 65 Torrington Square.

Believe me, my dear Sir, Very truly yours, John T. Coleridge .

Mr. Murray lost no time in informing his friends of his decision, and his letter to Mr. Southey and that received by him from Mr. D’Israeli are subjoined:—

John Murray to Mr. Southey.

Albemarle Street, Dec. 11th, 1824. My dear Sir,

Having possessed myself of your valuable opinion and advice with regard to the choice of a new Editor for the Quarterly Review, I did not like to trouble you further until after necessary circumspection and the arrangement of some delicate interests, I could feel satisfied that I might venture to make my election with propriety and with safety. It is with no small degree of pleasure that I can now inform you that my decision accords with your recommendation, and that, after the little that there can be to negotiate, I have every reason to believe that it will terminate in Mr. Coleridge’s accepting the Editorship. In the meantime, it would be a kind and serviceable act if you were so good as to write your opinion and recommendation of Mr. Coleridge to Mr. Canning and Mr. Croker, whose confidence is of great importance for us to obtain.

I shall only add that I rely upon the promise of your fervid support under this new arrangement, and that I remain always, etc.,

J. M.

Mr. I. D’Israeli to John Murray.

Bloomsbury Square, Dec. 12th, 1824. My Dear Murray,

You have given me great pleasure in your communication of yesterday, that the Editorship of the Q. R. is at length finally adjusted.

Unquestionably, on this occasion, you have proceeded, step by step, with all the prudence and consideration such an important event, I may say to the world, as well as to yourself, has painfully required. A better choice, perhaps, it is impossible to make—that it is an excellent one, you have many reasons to infer.

The present Editor, we may imagine, has had the advantage of a gradual initiation—and his mind warmed by the same principles, is fully impressed by the character which marked out his celebrated predecessor. The particular excellences of Mr. Gifford are the new Editor’s inheritance, and to preserve this entire, would be sufficient to secure superiority.

But of a periodical work, whose prosperity mainly depends on the movable nature of the age, it may well deserve consideration, whether it be not absolutely necessary to improve an old inheritance by new possessions. What may have been sometimes left undone in the former Quarterlies, may yet be accomplished in the new ones; and it is in human nature that a successor has certain advantages over his predecessor.

The mantle has been caught, and comes instinct with the spirit of the old Prophet; but it would be asking “a hard thing” that it should communicate “a double portion of the spirit.” And yet I will not cease praying for it—being, my dear Murray,

Most faithfully yours, I. D’Israeli .

On December 30th, 1824, the Rev. H. H. Milman writes to Mr. Murray: “Coleridge had previously apprised me of his installation in the editorship, and has been kind enough to ask my assistance. I am convinced that, all circumstances considered, you have been fortunate in your selection.”

Gifford lived for about two years more, and continued to entertain many kind thoughts of his friends and fellow-contributors: his intercourse with his publisher was as close and intimate as ever to the end.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

Friday morn, Dec. 31st, 1824. My dear Sir,

In the long course of our acquaintance you can bear me witness that the only fault I ever taxed you with in pecuniary matters, was with that of being too liberal to me; if, in the present instance, you have committed, as I fear, a greater fault than ever, I cannot help it; but most sincerely and affectionately do I thank you for your kindness.

It was the Dean, who, seeing the marvellous confusion of my table, and learning the cause, suggested to me that the paper might have slipped out in your study. I was not sorry to think this, for I really suspected that it had buried itself among my innumerable scraps—and, between ourselves, had it done so, it would not be the first time.

I thank you again and again for your presents of this day—I wish I could make you a better, or any other return than that of promising to think of your kindness, and to drink your health in one of the bottles after dinner; and ’tis long since I tasted wine. A prosperous and a happy new year to you, and I beg to join Mrs. Murray in the prayer, which comes with great sincerity, from, dear Sir,

Yours most faithfully, Wm. Gifford .

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

James Street, January 1st, l825. My Dear Sir,

When you were here this morning, I had not the smallest idea of the munificence of your kindness; for it would have been very repugnant to my feelings to make any inquiry; and I therefore waited till Snow’s Book came to me in the usual course of business. Patty brought it in, ten minutes after you left me. After all I have seen of your liberality, I confess I was surprised; and I hope you will believe me when I add that I was also a little grieved. I need not such costly proofs of your regard. Had you made the former sum £200, I should have been both satisfied and pleased; had you given me £50, beyond which my thoughts never advanced, I should have deeply felt your kindness; but what to say of this profession of friendship I know not. To remonstrate with you is a vain and ungrateful task—and the subject affects me. I can only hope, therefore, that I may be enabled to show how sensibly it touches me, and that I am, with the truest regard, your

Obliged and affectionate friend, Wm. Gifford .

About two years after his retirement from the Quarterly, Mr. Canning, Lord Liverpool, and others sent him some pecuniary assistance, which Gifford acknowledged with tender sympathy:—

Mr. Gifford to the Rt. Hon. G. Canning.

James Street, March 5th, 1826. My Dear Canning,

I have been long most anxious to write to you, but had not the power. It is now nearly nine weeks since my old enemy, Eurus, found me in the Park, and sent me home in the custody of a severe cold, that rigidly confined me to my bedroom, and almost to my bed, till Monday last. But this would hardly justify complaint; the worst is, that the rags and tatters of my poor mind, which was broken to pieces in the more than tropical fires of last summer, and which I fondly hoped were adjusting themselves in some slight measure, became as seam-rent as before, and I could neither write, nor read, nor think, for three minutes together.

When Frere—and I cannot name him without a grateful remembrance of his considerate and affectionate attention—first mentioned the matter to me, it was so unexpected, and altogether so remote from anything that ever entered my thoughts, that in my weak state I am not sure that I fully comprehended him while he stayed. I believe he saw this, and in kindness dropped the subject. After he left me I recurred to it, and was totally overpowered. And now, my dear Canning, what can I say? I did not think that I, who have lived for the last five-and-twenty years in the pleasing assurance of possessing your regard and affection, could have been so surprised; but I cannot proceed.

I will not deny that your bounty was acceptable, because, for reasons which will not recur, the year had been a very trying one to me. But I earnestly and fervently hope that you will not think of repeating this splendid and costly proof of affection. I solemnly assure you that it is not at all necessary; for with my salary from the lottery (which is regularly paid me, and which, as I am now on the verge of seventy, will not, I trust, be withheld from me), I am even rich.

The only name given to me besides yours was that of Lord Liverpool, so that I am but imperfectly acquainted with my benefactors. I bless God for such friends, and shall be very careful not to lose them unnecessarily. I experienced, however, a degree of delight not common to my dulled feelings at the mention of Lord Liverpool’s kindness, and had I strength I would write to him; but I have not, and I lament it. Will you, therefore, have the goodness to assure his lordship from me that nothing has occurred to me these many years so gratifying as this proof that I still retain a place in his memory and regard. I will not tell you how long I have been about this letter, and yet I fancy myself somewhat improved; but I must have done.

One word more, however, on a subject which is seldom out of my thoughts. Let me beg you to take care of yourself. Catch, or rather snatch at, every interval of relaxation. It is a fearful thing to break down the mind by unremitted tension. Remember what Horace says to Virgil: “Misce stultitiam consiliis brevem;” for, though the poet is evidently quizzing his poor friend, his advice is not to be despised.

Ever, my dear Canning, Most faithfully and affectionately yours, Wm. Gifford .

Many were the kind inquiries which reached Mr. Murray as to Gifford’s health: his friend Mitchell wrote:—

Mr. T. Mitchell to John Murray.

“It gives me great concern to hear of these frequent illnesses of Mr. Gifford. Mixed up with higher regrets for any serious attacks upon his health or vigour, I have personal feelings to make me interested in them. I can never forget his personal kindness to myself; and if I have gained any little credit with the public, I cannot but remember how much I am indebted to his taste and judgment, and the confidence put into me by both for the acquisition. When you write next, I shall hope to hear a more favourable account.”

The next, and the last letter, which we can find in the Murray collection was addressed to him about a month later.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

April 29th, 1826. My Dear Sir,

I see with regret in the papers of this morning that my poor friend Moorcroft is dead.* It is mentioned in the Asiatic Journal. I shall be obliged to you if you can spare it to me for an hour or two, and I will return it. I loved Moorcroft much. He was to be sure a little flighty; but he was of a sweet disposition, inquisitive, active, and unwearied in his favourite pursuits. Poor fellow! I little dreamed that he would have gone before me.

The last letter that Gifford sent to Mr. Canning, written the month before his death, accompanied the 2 vol. edition of ‘Ford’s Dramatic Works,’ which Gifford had recently been engaged upon.

Mr. Gifford to the Rt. Hon. G. Canning.

James Street, Nov. 15th, 1826. My Dear Canning,

I send you a copy of ‘Ford.’ The avowed object is the real one—saving the press from disgrace by anticipating the bookseller’s design of giving a republication of ‘Weber.’ I feared at one time that I should not be able to get through with the work, trifling as it is. I am sadly fallen off in strength since you saw me; but this is the natural course of things,

“aridâ Pellente lascivos amores Canitie facilemque somnum.”

As for the Loves, why, “I humbly gave them leave to depart” an age ago, and they went, I suppose; but the

* Mr. Wm. Moorcroft went to India, and made some remarkable journeys and discoveries on the North-west frontier, especially in the Himalayas, the Punjab, Cashmere and Tibet. He died at Bokhara in 1808. His narrative is included in Moorcroft and Trebeck’s ‘Travels,’ published in 1841.

loss of the facile slumber (a recent affliction) touches one very nearly. As I have not power to think to any purpose, my nights are as tedious as my days, and I frequently rise more dull and weary than I lie down.

You are now playing into a world of business, but remember the miser.

Ever, my dear Canning, Faithfully and affectionately yours, Wm. Gifford .

The last month of Gifford’s life was but a slow dying. He was sleepless, feverish, oppressed by an extreme difficulty of breathing, which often entirely deprived him of speech; and his sight had failed. Towards the end of his life he would sometimes take up a pen, and after a vain attempt to write, would throw it down, saying, “No, my work is done!” Even thinking caused him pain. As his last hour drew near, his mind began to wander. “These books have driven me mad,” he once said, “I must read my prayers.” He passed gradually away, his pulse ceasing to beat five hours before his death. And then he slept out of life, on the 31st of December, 1826, in his 68th year—a few months before the death of Canning.

Mr. Gifford desired that he should be buried in the ground attached to Grosvenor Chapel, South Audley Street, where he had interred Annie Davies, his faithful old housekeeper, but his friends made application for his interment in Westminster Abbey, which was acceded to, and he was buried there accordingly on the 8th of January, 1827, immediately under the monuments of Camden and Garrick. His funeral was attended by Dr. Ireland, Dean of Westminster, the two Misses Cookesley, General Grosvenor, Mr. Murray, Mr. Croker, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Chantrey, Mr. Lockhart, Mr. F. Palgrave, Mr. Hoppner, and others. Though perfectly indifferent about money, he was much richer at the time of his death than he was at all aware of. Indeed, he several times returned money to Mr. Murray, saying, that “he had been too liberal.” He left £25,000 of personal property, a considerable part of which he left to the relatives of Mr. Cookesley, the surgeon of Ashburton, who had been to him so faithful and self-denying a friend in his early life. To Mr. Murray he left £100 as a memorial, and also 500 guineas, to enable him to reimburse a military gentleman to whom, jointly with Mr. Cookesley, he appears to have been bound for that sum at a former period.

Gifford has earned, but it is now generally recognized that he has unjustly earned, the character of a severe, if not a bitter critic. Possessing an unusually keen discernment of genuine excellence, and a scathing power of denunciation of what was false or bad in literature, he formed his judgments in accordance with a very high standard of merit. Sir Walter Scott said of his Baviad and Mæviad, that “he squashed at one blow a set of coxcombs who might have humbugged the world long enough.” His critical temper, however, was in truth exceptionally equable; regarding it as his duty to encourage all that was good and elevating, and relentlessly to denounce all that was bad or tended to lower the tone of literature, he conscientiously acted up to the standard by which he judged others, and never allowed personal feeling to intrude upon his official judgments.

It need scarcely be said that he proved himself an excellent editor, and that he entertained a high idea of the duties of that office. William Jerdan, who was introduced to Gifford by Canning, said: “I speak of him as he always was to me—full of gentleness, a sagacious adviser and instructor, upon so comprehensive a scale, that I never met his superior among the men of the age most renowned for vast information, and his captivating power in communicating it.” His sagacity and quickness of apprehension were remarkable, as was also the extraordinary rapidity with which he was able to eviscerate a work, and summarize its contents in a few pages.

The number of articles which he himself wrote was comparatively small, for he confined himself for the most part to revising and improving the criticisms of others, and though in thus dealing with articles submitted to him he frequently erased what the writers considered some of their best criticisms, he never lost their friendship and support. He disliked incurring any obligation which might in any degree shackle the expression of his free opinions. In conjunction with Mr. Murray, he laid down a rule, which as we have already seen was advocated by Scott, and to which no exception has ever been made, that every writer in the Quarterly should receive payment for his contribution. On one occasion, when a gentleman in office would not receive the money, the article was returned. “I am not more certain of many conjectures,” says Jerdan, “than I am of this, that he never propagated a dishonest opinion nor did a dishonest act.”

Gifford took no notice of the ferocious attacks made upon him by Hunt and Hazlitt. Holding, as he did, that inviolable secrecy was one of the prime functions of an editor—though the practice has since become very different—he never attempted to vindicate himself, or to reveal the secret as to the writers of the reviews. In accordance with his plan of secrecy, he desired Dr. Ireland, his executor, to destroy all confidential letters, especially those relating to the Review, so that the names of the authors, as well as the prices paid for each article, might never be known.

In society, of which he saw but little, except at Mr. Murray’s, he was very entertaining. He told a story remarkably well; and had an inexhaustible supply; the archness of his eyes and countenance making them all equally good.

He had never been married; but although he had no children, he had an exceeding love for them. When well, he delighted in giving juvenile parties, and rejoiced at seeing the children frisking about in the happiness of youth—a contrast which threw the misery of his own early life into strange relief. His domestic favourites were his dog and his cat, both of which he dearly loved. He was also most kind and generous to his domestic servants; and all who knew him well, sorrowfully lamented his death.

Many years after Gifford’s death, a venomous article upon him appeared in a London periodical. The chief point of this anonymous attack was contained in certain extracts from the writings of Sir W. Scott, Southey, and other eminent contemporaries of Mr. Gifford. Mr. R. W. Hay, one of the oldest contributors to the Quarterly, was at that time still living, and, in allusion to the article in question, he wrote to the present Mr. Murray:—

Mr. R. W. Hay to Mr. Murray.

July 7th, 1856.

It is wholly worthless, excepting as it contains strictures of Sir W. Scott, Southey, and John Wilson on the critical character of the late Wm. Gifford. I by no means subscribe to all that is said by these distinguished individuals on the subject, and I cannot help suspecting that the high station in literature which they occupied rendered them more than commonly sensitive to the corrections and erasures which were proposed by the editor. Sir Walter (great man as he was) was perfectly capable of writing so carelessly as to require correction, and both Southey and John Wilson might occasionally have brought forth opinions, on political and other matters, which were not in keeping with the general tone of the Quarterly Review. That poor Gifford was deformed in figure, feeble in health, unhappily for him there can be no denying, but that he had any pleasure in tormenting, as asserted by some, that he indulged in needless criticism without any regard to the feelings of those who were under his lash, I am quite satisfied cannot justly be maintained. In my small dealings with the Review, I only found the editor most kind and considerate. His amendments and alterations I generally at once concurred in, and I especially remember in one of the early articles, that he diminished the number of Latin quotations very much to its advantage; that his heart was quite in the right place I have had perfect means of knowing from more than one circumstance, e.g., his anxiety for the welfare of his friend Hoppner the painter’s children was displayed in the variety of modes which he adopted to assist them, and when John Galt was sorely maltreated in the Review in consequence of his having attributed to me, incorrectly, an article which occasioned his wrath and indignation, and afterwards was exposed to many embarrassments in life, Gifford most kindly took up his cause, and did all he could to further the promotion of his family. That our poor friend should have been exposed throughout the most part of his life to the strong dislike of the greatest part of the community is not unnatural. As the redacteur of the Anti-Jacobin, &c., he, in the latter part of the last century, drew upon himself the hostile attacks of all the modern philosophers of the age, and of all those who hailed with applause the dawn of liberty in the French Revolution; as editor of the Quarterly Review, he acquired, in addition to the former host of enemies, the undisguised hatred of all the Whigs and Liberals, who were for making peace with Bonaparte, and for destroying the settled order of things in this country. In the present generation, when the feeling of national hatred against France has entirely subsided, and party feelings have so much gone by that no man can say to which party any public man belongs, it is impossible for anyone to comprehend the state of public feeling which prevailed during the great war of the Revolution, and for some years after its termination. Gifford was deeply imbued with all the sentiments on public matters which prevailed in his time, and, as some people have a hatred of a cat, and others of a toad, so our friend felt uneasy when a Frenchman was named; and buckled on his armour of criticism whenever a Liberal or even a Whig was brought under his notice; and although in the present day there appears to be a greater indulgence to crime amongst judges and juries, and perhaps a more lenient system of criticism is adopted by reviewers, I am not sure that any public advantage is gained by having Ticket of Leave men, who ought to be in New South Wales, let loose upon the English world by the unchecked appearance of a vast deal of spurious literature, which ought to have withered under the severe blasts of Criticism.

Believe yours very truly, R. W. Hay .

CHAPTER XXVI. THE REPRESENTATIVES.

We have now to enter upon one of the momentous episodes of Mr. Murray’s career. He had long contemplated the establishment of a periodical which should appear more frequently than once a quarter. During the interval of the three months, many works and events of importance, political or literary, attracted public attention, which in his opinion might be made matters of record or comment, but he possessed no means of dealing with them as promptly as was necessary. The Quarterly had rallied to its side a large number of political and literary men, who, he thought, might be relied on in supporting his proposed periodical.

After he had given up his connection with Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine —for reasons already stated—the idea of a new magazine again occurred to him. A Foreign Literary Review was suggested, but finally abandoned. At the beginning of 1818 we find Mr. Maurice, of the British Museum, writing to Mr. Murray:—

“Mr. Bulmer informs me that you are about to publish some new periodical work, and I think my situation and resources here will enable me occasionally to be of use to you, if my services may prove agreeable.”

Nothing, however, was done about the proposed publication.

At the end of 1818 we find Mr. John Taylor offering Mr. Murray half the property of the Daily Sun at the price which he had given for it, and in the following year Mr. Jerdan asked him to join him as partner in the Literary Gazette, but these proposals were not accepted. In 1819 Mr. J. W. Croker wrote to Mr. Lockhart (then in Edinburgh) on the subject of starting a weekly newspaper to be entitled the Constitution, and published weekly. The Rev. Mr. Croly was to be editor and joint proprietor, and the son of Mr. Street, of the Courier, was to be the other proprietor. He requested Lockhart to communicate the design to Mr. Wilson and his other friends, and to request the assistance of their pens in promoting the new undertaking, which, however, was also very soon abandoned.

In 1820, however, Mr. Murray was induced by Mr. Croker to become a partner with him in the Guardian newspaper, printed and published by Charles Knight at Windsor. It was no doubt to oblige Mr. Croker that Mr. Murray became connected with this publication, which, as we have already seen, proved unsuccessful, and soon dropped out of sight. In February 1823 Mr. Robert Baldwin offered Mr. Murray the British Review (’My Grandmother’s Review, the British’), but Mr. Murray declined to have anything to do with it.

Passing on to 1824, we find Mr. Francis Cohen writing to Mr. Murray from Yarmouth:—

Mr. Cohen to John Murray.

“Our friend Hallam has communicated to me your ideas concerning the establishment of a new journal. The name of the Athenæum does not please me. Dr. Aikin’s Athenæum lingered through a year of sickly existence. And I doubt whether any advantage would be gained by the patronage of the Club in Waterloo Place. Mr. Hallam intimated that you were half inclined to pay us a visit. Mr. Turner would be most happy to receive you, and we might then talk the matter over.”

This scheme also, like its predecessors, proved abortive, but in the following year (1825), through the influence of Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, Mr. Murray’s idea of a new publication was fully developed in the projection of a daily morning newspaper. The intimacy which existed between the Murrays and D’Israelis afforded Mr. Murray exceptional opportunities of forming an opinion of Benjamin’s character, and he saw with delight the rapidly developing capacities of his old friend’s son. Even in his eighteenth year Benjamin was consulted by Mr. Murray as to the merits of a MS., and two years later he wrote a novel entitled ‘Aylmer Papillon,’ which did not see the light. He also edited a ‘History of Paul Jones, Admiral in the Russian Navy,’ written by Theophilus Smart, an American, and originally published in the United States.

Young Disraeli was already gifted with a power of influencing others, unusual in a man of his age. He was eloquent, persuasive, and ingenious, and even then, as in future years, when he became a leading figure in the political world, he had the power of drawing others over to the views which he entertained, however different they might be from their own. Looking merely to his literary career as a successful novel writer, his correspondence with Mr. Murray about his proposed work of ‘Aylmer Papillon’ is not without interest.

Mr. Benjamin Disraeli to John Murray.

May, 1824. My dear Sir,

Your very kind letter induces me to trouble you with this most trivial of trifles. My plan has been in these few pages so to mix up any observations which I had to make on the present state of society with the bustle and hurry of a story, that my satire should never be protruded on my reader. If you will look at the last chapter but one, entitled “Lady Modeley’s,” you will see what I mean better than I can express it. The first pages of that chapter I have written in the same manner as I would a common novel, but I have endeavoured to put in action at the end, the present fashion of getting on in the world. I write no humbug about “candidly giving your opinion, etc, etc.” You must be aware that you cannot do me a greater favour than refusing to publish it, if you think it won’t do; and who should be a better judge than yourself?

Believe me ever to be, my dear Sir, Your most faithful and obliged, B. Disraeli .*

P.S.—The second and the last chapters are unfortunately mislaid, but they have no particular connection with the story. They are both very short, the first contains an adventure on the road, and the last Mr. Papillon’s banishment under the Alien Act from a ministerial misconception of a metaphysical sonnet.

Thursday morn.: Excuse want of seal, as we’re doing a bit of summer to-day, and there is not a fire in the house.

Frederick Place, May 25th, 1824. 1/2 past 1 o’clock a.m. My dear Sir,

The travels, to which I alluded this morning, would not bind up with ‘Parry,’ since a moderate duodecimo would contain the adventures of a certain Mr. Aylmer Papillon in a terra incognita. I certainly should never have mentioned them had I been aware that you were so very much engaged, and I only allude to them once more that no

* It will be observed that while the father maintained the older spelling of the name the son invariably writes it thus.

confusion may arise from the half-explanations given this morning. You will oblige me by not mentioning this to anybody.

Believe me to be, my dear Sir, Your very faithful and obliged Servant, B. Disraeli.

Frederick Place, June 1824. My dear Sir,

Until I received your note this morning I had flattered myself that my indiscretion had been forgotten. It is to me a matter of great regret that, as appears by your letter, any more trouble should be given respecting this unfortunate MS., which will, most probably, be considered too crude a production for the public, and which, if it is even imagined to possess any interest, is certainly too late for this season, and will be obsolete in the next. I think, therefore, that the sooner it be put behind the fire the better, and as you have some small experience in burning MSS.,* you will be perhaps so kind as to consign it to the flames. Once more apologising for all the trouble I have given you,

I remain ever, my dear Sir, Yours very faithfully, B. Disraeli.

Murray had a special regard for the remarkable young man, and by degrees had thoroughly taken him into his confidence; had related to him his experiences of men and affairs, and ere long began to consult him about a variety of schemes and projects. These long confidential communications led eventually to the suggestion of a much more ambitious and hazardous scheme, the establishment

* Byron’s Memoirs had been burnt at Albemarle Street during the preceding month.

of a daily paper in the Conservative interest. Daring as this must appear, Murray was encouraged in it by the recollection of the success which had attended the foundation of the Quarterly, and believed, rashly, that his personal energy and resources, aided by the abilities displayed by his young counsellor, would lead to equal success. He evidently had too superficially weighed the enormous difficulties of this far greater undertaking, and the vast difference between the conduct of a Quarterly Review and a daily newspaper.

Intent upon gaining a position in the world, Benjamin Disraeli saw a prospect of advancing his own interests—by obtaining the influential position of director of a Conservative daily paper, which he fully imagined was destined to equal the Times, and he succeeded in imbuing Murray with the like fallacious hopes. The emancipation of the Colonies of Spain in South America in 1824-25 gave rise to much speculation in the money market in the expectation of developing the resources of that country, especially its mines. Shares, stocks, and loans were issued to an unlimited extent.

Mr. Benjamin Disraeli seems to have thrown himself into the vortex, for he became connected with at least one financing firm in the City, that of Messrs. Powles, and employed his abilities in writing several pamphlets on the subject. This led to his inducing Messrs. Powles to embark with him in the scheme of a daily paper. At length an arrangement was entered into, by which John Murray, J. D. Powles, and Benjamin Disraeli were to become the joint proprietors of the proposed new journal. The arrangement was as follows:—

Memorandum. London, August 3rd, 1825.

The undersigned panics agree to establish a Morning Paper, the property in which is to be in the following proportions, viz.: Mr. Murray One-half. Mr. Powles One-quarter. Mr. Disraeli One-quarter.

Each party contributing to the expense, capital, and risk, in those proportions.

The paper to be published by, and be under the management of Mr. Murray.

John Murray. J. D. Powles. B. Disraeli.

Such was the memorandum of agreement entered into with a view to the publication of the new morning paper, eventually called the Representative. As the first number was to appear in January 1826, there was little time to be lost in making the necessary arrangements for its publication. In the first place, an able editor had to be found; and, perhaps of almost equal importance, an able sub-editor. Trustworthy reporters had to be engaged; foreign and home correspondents had also to be selected with care; a printing office had to be taken; all the necessary plant and apparatus had to be provided, and a staff of men brought together preliminary to the opening day.

The most important point in connection with the proposed journal was to find the editor. Mr. Murray had been so ably assisted by Sir Walter Scott in the projection of the Quarterly Review, that he resolved to consult him on the subject; and this mission was undertaken by Benjamin Disraeli, part proprietor of the intended daily journal, though he was then only twenty years old. It was hoped that Mr. Lockhart, Sir Walter Scott’s son-in-law, might be induced to undertake the editorship. The following are Mr. Disraeli’s letters to Mr. Murray, giving an account of the progress of his negotiations. It will be observed that he surrounds the subject with a degree of mystery, through the names which he gives to the gentlemen whom he interviewed. Thus the Chevalier is Sir Walter Scott; M. is Mr. Lockhart; X. is Mr. Canning; O. is the political Puck (could this be himself?); and Chronometer is Mr. Barrow.

On reaching Edinburgh, Mr. Disraeli wrote to Mr. Murray the following account of his first journey across the Border:—

Mr. B. Disraeli to John Murray.

Royal Hotel, Edinburgh. September 21st, 1825. My dear Sir,

I arrived in Edinburgh yesterday night at 11 o’clock. I slept at Stamford, York, and Newcastle, and by so doing felt quite fresh at the end of my journey. I never preconceived a place better than Edinburgh. It is exactly what I fancied it, and certainly is the most beautiful town in the world. You can scarcely call it a city; at least, it has little of the roar of millions, and at this time is of course very empty. I could not enter Scotland by the route you pointed out, and therefore was unable to ascertain the fact of the Chevalier being at his Castellum. I should in that case have gone by Carlisle. I called on the gentleman to whom Wright [a solicitor] gave me a letter this morning. He is at his country house; he will get a letter from me this morning. You see, therefore, that I have lost little time.

I called at Oliver & Boyd’s this morning, thinking that you might have written. You had not, however. When you write to me, enclose to them, as they will forward, wherever I may be, and my stay at an hotel is always uncertain. Mr. Boyd was most particularly civil. Their establishment is one of the completest I have ever seen. They are booksellers, bookbinders, and printers, all under the same roof; everything but making paper. I intend to examine the whole minutely before I leave, as it may be useful. I never thought of binding. Suppose you were to sew, &c., your own publications?

I arrived at York in the midst of the Grand [Musical] Festival. It was late at night when I arrived, but the streets were crowded, and continued so for hours. I never witnessed a city in such an extreme bustle, and so delightfully gay. It was a perfect carnival. I postponed my journey from five in the morning to eleven, and by so doing got an hour for the Minster, where I witnessed a scene which must have far surpassed, by all accounts, the celebrated commemoration in Westminster Abbey. York Minster baffles all conception. Westminster Abbey is a toy to it. I think it is impossible to conceive of what Gothic architecture is susceptible until you see York. I speak with cathedrals of the Netherlands and the Rhine fresh in my memory. I witnessed in York another splendid sight—the pouring in of all the nobility and gentry of the neighbourhood and the neighbouring counties. The four-in-hands of the Yorkshire squires, the splendid rivalry in liveries and outriders, and the immense quantity of gorgeous equipages—numbers with four horses—formed a scene which you can only witness in the mighty and aristocratic county of York. It beat a Drawing Room hollow, as much as an oratorio in York Minster does a concert in the Opera House. This delightful stay at York quite refreshed me, and I am not the least fatigued by my journey.

As I have only been in Edinburgh a few hours, of course I have little to say. I shall write immediately that anything occurs. Kindest remembrances to Mrs. Murray and all.

Ever yours, B. D.

I find Froissart a most entertaining companion, just the fellow for a traveller’s evening; and just the work too, for it needs neither books of reference nor accumulations of MS.

Royal Hotel, Edinburgh, Sunday. September 22nd, 1825. My dear Sir,

I sent a despatch by Saturday night’s post, directed to Mr. Barrow. You have doubtless received it safe. As I consider you are anxious to hear minutely of the state of my operations, I again send you a few lines. I received this morning a very polite letter from L[ockhart.] He had just received that morning (Saturday) Wright’s letter. I enclose you a copy of L.’s letter, as it will be interesting to you to see or judge what effect was produced on his mind by its perusal. I have written to-day to say that I will call at Chiefswood* on Tuesday. I intend to go to Melrose to-morrow, but as I will not take the chance of meeting him the least tired, I shall sleep at Melrose and call on the following morning. I shall, of course, accept his offer of staying there. I shall call again at B[oyd]s before my departure to-morrow, to see if there is any despatch from you. . . . I shall continue to give you advice of all my movements. You will agree with me that I have at least not lost any time, but that all things have gone very well as yet. There is of course no danger in our communications of anything unfairly transpiring; but from the very delicate nature of names interested, it will be expedient to adopt some cloak.

The Chevalier will speak for itself.

M., from Melrose, for Mr. L.

X. for a certain personage on whom we called one day, who lives a slight distance from town, and who was then unwell.

O. for the political Puck.

Mr. Chronometer will speak for itself, at least to all those who give African dinners.

I think this necessary, and try to remember it. I am quite delighted with Edinburgh. Its beauties become every moment more apparent. The view from the Calton Hill finds me a frequent votary. In the present state of affairs, I suppose it will not be expedient to leave the letter for Mrs. Bruce. It will seem odd; p.p.c. at the same moment I bring a letter of introduction. If I return to Edinburgh, I can avail myself of it. If the letter contains anything which would otherwise make Mrs. Murray wish it

* Chiefswood, where Lockhart then lived, is about two miles distant from Abbotsford. Sir Walter Scott describes it as “a nice little cottage, in a glen belonging to this property, with a rivulet in front, and a grove of trees on the east side to keep away the cold wind.”

to be left, let me know. I revel in the various beauties of a Scotch breakfast. Cold grouse and marmalade find me, however, constant.

Ever yours, B. D.

The letter of Mr. Lockhart, to which Mr. Disraeli refers, ran as follows:—

Mr. J. G. Lockhart to Mr. B. Disraeli.

“The business to which the letter [of Mr. Wright]* refers entitles it to much consideration. As yet I have had no leisure nor means to form even an approximation towards any opinion as to the proposal Mr. W. mentions, far less to commit my friend. In a word, I am perfectly in the dark as to everything else, except that I am sure it will give Mrs. Lockhart and myself very great pleasure to see Mr. Disraeli under this roof. . . . If you had no other object in view, I flatter myself that this neighbourhood has, in Melrose and Abbotsford, some attractions not unworthy of your notice.”

Mr. Disraeli paid his promised visit to Chiefswood. It appeared that Mr. Lockhart expected to receive Mr. Isaac D’Israeli, the well-known author of ‘The Curiosities of Literature’; instead of which, the person who appeared before him was Mr. D’Israeli’s then unknown son Benjamin.

Mr. B. Disraeli to John Murray.

Chiefswood. September 25th, 1825. My dear Sir,

I arrived at Chiefswood yesterday. M. [Lockhart] had conceived that it was my father who was coming. He was led to believe this through Wright’s letter. In addition, therefore, to his natural reserve, there was, of course, an evident disappointment at seeing me. Everything looked as black as possible. I shall not detain you now by informing

* A solicitor in London, and friend of both parties, who had been consulted in the negotiations.

you of fresh particulars. I leave them for when we meet. Suffice it to say that in a few hours we completely understood each other, and were upon the most intimate terms. M. enters into our views with a facility and readiness which were capital. He thinks that nothing can be more magnificent or excellent; but two points immediately occurred: First, the difficulty of his leaving Edinburgh without any ostensible purpose; and, secondly, the losing caste in society by so doing. He is fully aware that he may end by making his situation as important as any in the empire, but the primary difficulty is insurmountable.

As regards his interest, I mentioned that he should be guaranteed, for three years, £1000 per annum, and should take an eighth of every paper which was established, without risk, his income ceasing on his so doing. These are much better terms than we had imagined we could have made. The agreement is thought extremely handsome, both by him and the Chevalier; but the income is not imagined to be too large. However, I dropped that point, as it should be arranged with you when we all meet.

The Chevalier breakfasted here to-day, and afterwards we were all three closeted together. The Chevalier entered into it excellently. He thought, however, that we could not depend upon Malcolm, Barrow, &c., keeping to it; but this I do not fear. He, of course, has no idea of your influence or connections. With regard to the delicate point I mentioned, the Chevalier is willing to make any sacrifice in his personal comforts for Lockhart’s advancement; but he feels that his son-in-law will “lose caste” by going to town without anything ostensible. He agrees with me that M. cannot accept an official situation of any kind, as it would compromise his independence, but he thinks Parliament for M. indispensable, and also very much to our interest. I dine at Abbotsford to-day, and we shall most probably again discuss matters.

Now, these are the points which occur to me. When M. comes to town, it will be most important that it should be distinctly proved to him that he will be supported by the great interests I have mentioned to him. He must see that, through Powles, all America and the Commercial Interest is at our beck; that Wilmot H., &c., not as mere under-secretary, but as our private friend, is most staunch; that the Chevalier is firm; that the West India Interest will pledge themselves that such men and in such situations as Barrow, &c., &c., are distinctly in our power; and, finally, that he is coming to London, not to be an Editor of a Newspaper, but the Director-General of an immense organ, and at the head of a band of high-bred gentlemen and important interests.

The Chevalier and M. have unburthened themselves to me in a manner the most confidential that you can possibly conceive. Of M.’s capability, perfect complete capability, there is no manner of doubt. Of his sound principles, and of his real views in life, I could in a moment satisfy you. Rest assured, however, that you are dealing with a perfect gentleman. There has been no disguise to me of what has been done, and the Chevalier had a private conversation with me on the subject, of a nature the most satisfactory. With regard to other plans of ours, if we could get him up, we should find him invaluable. I have a most singular and secret history on this subject when we meet.

Now, on the grand point—Parliament. M. cannot be a representative of a Government borough. It is impossible. He must be free as air. I am sure that if this could be arranged, all would be settled; but it is “indispensable” without you can suggest anything else. M. was two days in company with X. this summer, as well as X.’s and our friend, but nothing transpired of our views. This is a most favourable time to make a parliamentary arrangement. What do you think of making a confidant of Wilmot H[orton]? He is the kind of man who would be right pleased by such conduct. There is no harm of Lockhart’s coming in for a Tory borough, because he is a Tory; but a Ministerial borough is impossible to be managed.

If this point could be arranged, I have no doubt that I shall be able to organise, in the interest with which I am now engaged, a most immense party, and a most serviceable one. Be so kind as not to leave the vicinity of London, in case M. and myself come up suddenly; but I pray you, if you have any real desire to establish a mighty engine, to exert yourself at this present moment, and assist me to your very utmost. Write as soon as possible, to give me some idea of your movements, and direct to me here, as I shall then be sure to obtain your communication. The Chevalier and all here have the highest idea of Wright’s nous, and think it most important that he should be at the head of the legal department. I write this despatch in the most extreme haste.

Ever yours, B. D.

On receiving the above letter and the previous communications, Mr. Murray sent them to Mr. Isaac D’Israeli for his perusal.

Mr. Isaac D’Israeli to Mr. Murray.

Hyde House, Amersham, September 29th, 1825. My Dear Friend,

How deeply I feel obliged and gratified by your confidential communication! I read repeatedly the third letter of our young plenipotentiary. I know nothing against him but his youth—a fault which a few seasons of experience will infallibly correct; but I have observed that the habits and experience he has acquired as a lawyer often greatly serve him in matters of business. His views are vast, but they are based on good sense, and he is most determinedly serious when he sets to work. The Chevalier and M. seem to have received him with all the open confidence of men struck by a stranger, yet a stranger not wholly strange, and known enough to them to deserve their confidence if he could inspire it. I flatter myself he has fully—he must, if he has really had confidential intercourse with the Chevalier, and so confidently impresses you with so high and favourable a character of M. On your side, my dear Murray, no ordinary exertions will avail. You, too, have faith and confidence to inspire in them. You observe how the wary Northern Genius attempted to probe whether certain friends of yours would stand together; no doubt they wish to ascertain that point. Pardon me if I add, that in satisfying their cautious and anxious inquiries as to your influence with these persons, it may be wise to throw a little shade of mystery, and not to tell everything too openly at first; because, when objects are clearly defined, they do not affect our imaginations as when they are somewhat concealed. . . . Vast as the project seems, held up as it will be by personages of wealth, interests, politics, &c., whenever it is once set up, I should have no fears for the results, which are indeed the most important that one can well conceive. . . . Had the editor of ‘Paul Jones’ consulted me a little, I could probably have furnished him with the account of the miserable end of his hero; and I am astonished it is not found, as you tell me, in your American biography.*

Meanwhile, young Disraeli still remained with Mr. Lockhart at Chiefswood.

Mr. B. Disraeli to John Murray.

September, 1825. My dear Sir,

I am quite sure, that upon the business I am upon now every line will be acceptable, and I therefore make no apology for this hurried despatch. I have just received a parcel from Oliver & Boyd. I transmitted a letter from M. to Wright, and which was for your mutual consideration, to you, viâ Chronometer, last Friday. I afterwards received a note from you, dated Chichester, and fearing from that circumstance that some confusion would arise, I

* The last paragraph in Mr. D’Israeli’s letter refers to ‘The Life of Paul Jones,’ which has been already mentioned. As the novel, ‘Aylmer Papillon,’ written in 1824, was never published, the preface to ‘Paul Jones’ was Benjamin’s first appearance as an author. Mr. Murray sent a copy of the volume to Allan Cunningham—then Mr. Chantrey’s manager and secretary. Mr. Cunningham, when acknowledging its receipt, said: “It contains much curious and instructive matter, and stamps anew on my mind the character of the man. His love of literature, his thirst for fame, his inflexible temper, his heroic bravery, and his vanity, which was superior to all. With the particulars of his life I am intimately acquainted. He was born in my native place [Blackwood, Dumfriesshire], and his journals and letters, which are both interesting and numerous, are in the possession of his nieces. I have several of his letters myself.” Allan Cunningham afterwards wrote a work on the pirate hero, entitled ‘Paul Jones: a Romance,’ perhaps the best of his works of fiction.

wrote a few lines to you at Mr. Holland’s.* I now find that you will be in town on Monday, on which day I rather imagine the said letter from M. to Wright will arrive. I therefore trust that the suspected confusion will not arise.

I am very much obliged to you for your letters; but I am very sorry that you have incurred any trouble, when it is most probable that I shall not use them. The Abbotsford and Chiefswood families have placed me on such a friendly and familiar footing, that it is utterly impossible for me to leave them while there exists any chance of M.’s going to England. M. has introduced me to most of the neighbouring gentry, and receives with a loud laugh any mention of my return to Edinburgh. I dined with Dr. Brewster the other day. He has a pretty place near Melrose. It is impossible for me to give to you any written idea of the beauty and unique character of Abbotsford. Adio!

B. D.

Mr. Murray continued to transmit the correspondence to Mr. Isaac D’Israeli, whose delight may be conceived from the following:—

Mr. D’Israeli to John Murray.

October 9th, 1825. My Dear Friend,

Thanks! My warmest ones are poor returns for the ardent note you have so affectionately conveyed to me by him on whom we now both alike rest our hopes and our confidence. The more I think of this whole affair, from its obscure beginnings, the more I am quite overcome by what he has already achieved; never did the finest season of blossoms promise a richer gathering. But he has not the sole merit, for you share it with him, in the grand view you take of the capability of this new intellectual steam engine.

Mr. Murray knew something of Mr. Lockhart before the above correspondence took place. While at Balliol College

* The Rev. W. Holland, Mr. Murray’s brother-in-law, was a minor canon of Chichester.

Oxford, in 1817, he had written to Murray, offering to help him with translations from the German, but nothing came of this proposal. After a journey to the Continent, he became an advocate in Edinburgh, and, as we have already seen, was subsequently an active contributor to Blackwood’s Magazine. In March 1819, Blackwood wrote to Murray:—

“A very particular friend of mine, Mr. J. G. Lockhart, advocate, sailed for London on Friday. I gave him a letter of introduction to you, as I think you will like to know him. He is a very uncommon young man, and made a distinguished figure at Oxford.”

From that time until Mr. B. Disraeli’s visit to Chiefswood he and Murray had but little personal communication, but, when the editorship of the Representative, a post from which he shrank, was formally offered to him, he wrote:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. October 7th, 1825.

“I am afraid, that in spite of my earnest desire to be clear and explicit, you have not after all fully understood the inexpressible feeling I entertain in regard to the impossibility of my ever entering into the career of London in the capacity of a newspaper editor. I confess that you, who have adorned and raised your own profession so highly, may feel inclined, and justly perhaps, to smile at some of my scruples; but it is enough to say that every hour that has elapsed since the idea was first started has only served to deepen and confirm the feeling with which I at the first moment regarded it; and, in short, that if such a game ought to be played, I am neither young nor poor enough to be the man that takes the hazard.”

Sir Walter Scott also expressed his views on the subject as follows:—

Sir W. Scott to John Murray.

Abbotsford, Sunday, October 12th, 1825. My dear Sir,

Lockhart seems to wish that I would express my opinion of the plan which you have had the kindness to submit to him, and I am myself glad of an opportunity to express my sincere thanks for the great confidence you are willing to repose in one so near to me, and whom I value so highly. There is nothing in life that can be more interesting to me than his prosperity, and should there eventually appear a serious prospect of his bettering his fortunes by quitting Scotland, I have too much regard for him to desire him to remain, notwithstanding all the happiness I must lose by his absence and that of my daughter. The present state, however, of the negotiation leaves me little or no reason to think that I will be subjected to this deprivation, for I cannot conceive it advisable that he should leave Scotland on the speculation of becoming editor of a newspaper. It is very true that this department of literature may and ought to be rendered more respectable than it is at present, but I think this is a reformation more to be wished than hoped for, and should think it rash for any young man, of whatever talent, to sacrifice, nominally at least, a considerable portion of his respectability in society in hopes of being submitted as an exception to a rule which is at present pretty general. This might open the door to love of money, but it would effectually shut it against ambition.

To leave Scotland, Lockhart must make very great sacrifices, for his views here, though moderate, are certain, his situation in public estimation and in private society is as high as that of any one at our Bar, and his road to the public open, if he chooses to assist his income by literary resources. But of the extent and value of these sacrifices he must himself be a judge, and a more unprejudiced one, probably, than I am.

I am very glad he meets your wishes by going up to town, as this, though it should bear no further consequences, cannot but serve to show a grateful sense of the confidence and kindness of the parties concerned, and yours in particular.

I beg kind compliments to Mr. D’Israeli, and am, dear sir, with best wishes for the success of your great national plan.

Yours very truly, Walter Scott.

Although Mr. Lockhart hung back from the proposed editorship, he nevertheless carried out his intention of visiting Mr. Murray in London a few weeks after the date of the above letter. Mr. J. T. Coleridge had expressed his desire to resign the editorship of the Quarterly, in consequence of his rapidly increasing practice on the western circuit, and Mr. Lockhart was sounded as to his willingness to become his successor, Mr. Murray entertaining the hope that he might be able to give a portion of his time to rendering some assistance in the management of the proposed newspaper. As Sir Walter Scott had been taken into their counsels, through the medium of Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Murray proceeded to correspond with him on the subject. From the draft of one of Mr. Murray’s letters we extract the following:—

John Murray to Sir Walter Scott.

October 13th, 1825. My Dear Sir Walter,

I feel greatly obliged by the favour of your kind letter, and for the good opinion which you are disposed to entertain of certain plans, of which you will by degrees be enabled to form, I hope, a still more satisfactory estimate. At present, I will take the liberty of assuring you, that after your confidence in me, I will neither propose nor think of anything respecting Mr. Lockhart that has not clearly for its basis the honour of his family. With regard to our Great Plan—which really ought not to be designated a newspaper, as that department of literature has hitherto been conducted—Mr. Lockhart was never intended to have anything to do as editor: for we have already secured two most efficient and respectable persons to fill that department. I merely wished to receive his general advice and assistance. And Mr. Lockhart would only be known or suspected to be the author of certain papers of grave national importance. The more we have thought and talked over our plans, the more certain are we of their inevitable success, and of their leading us to certain power, reputation, and fortune. For myself, the heyday of my youth is passed, though I may be allowed certain experience in my profession. I have acquired a moderate fortune, and have a certain character, and move now in the first circles of society; and I have a family: these, I hope, may be some fair pledge to you that I would not engage in this venture with any hazard, when all that is dearest to man would be my loss.

In order, however, to completely obviate any difficulties which have been urged, I have proposed to Mr. Lockhart to come to London as the editor of the Quarterly—an appointment which, I verily believe, is coveted by many of the highest literary characters in the country, and which, of itself, would entitle its possessor to enter into and mix with the first classes of society. For this, and without writing a line, but merely for performing the duties of an editor, I shall have the pleasure of allowing him a thousand pounds a year; and this, with contributions of his own, might easily become £1500, and take no serious portion of his time either. Then, for his connection with the paper, he will become permanently interested in a share we can guarantee to him for three years, and which, I am confident, will be worth, at the end of that period, at least £3000; and the profits from that share will not be less than £1500 per annum. I have lately heard, from good authority, that the annual profit of the Times is £40,000, and that a share in the Courier sold last week (wretchedly conducted, it seems) at the rate of £100,000 for the property.

But this is not all. You know well enough that the business of a publishing bookseller is not in his shop or even his connection, but in his brains; and we can put forward together a series of valuable literary works, and without, observe me, in any of these plans, the slightest risk to Mr. Lockhart. And I do most solemnly assure you that if I may take any credit to myself for possessing anything like sound judgment in my profession, the things which we shall immediately begin upon, as Mr. Lockhart will explain to you, are as perfectly certain of commanding a great sale as anything I ever had the good fortune to engage in.

These were very sanguine prognostications, but not sufficiently strong to induce Lockhart to reconsider his decision with respect to the part he was asked to take in the new morning paper. He nevertheless accepted the editorship of the Quarterly, and Sir Walter Scott expressed his readiness to assist him with renewed contributions to the periodical. Mr. B. Disraeli continued his correspondence with Lockhart, and informed him as to the progress of the negotiations.

Mr. J. G. Lockhart to John Murray. November 8th, 1825.

“Disraeli has been good enough, among other kindnesses, to write occasionally as to the great business in its progress. I am anxious to hear what is doing about building; and also, when you or Disraeli may have leisure, to learn the general result of the negotiation with Dr. Maginn.”*

Mr. Disraeli even took the trouble, a week after the date of the above letter, to go down to Scotland a second time to visit Lockhart at his cottage at Chiefswood, but the negotiations bearing upon the appointment of Lockhart as editor of the Quarterly, must be left to the next chapter, that we may here continue the story of the Representative.

In London Disraeli was indefatigable. He visited City men, for the purpose of obtaining articles on commercial

* Dr. Maginn, as a long-tried newspaper writer, was considered to be well qualified for the post of editor.

subjects. He employed an architect, Mr. G. Basevi, jun., his cousin, with a view to the planning of offices and printing premises. A large house was eventually taken in Great George Street, Westminster, and duly fitted up as a printing office.

Mr. B. Disraeli to John Murray. October, 1825.

“When Basevi has arranged the terms, you should furnish Powles with the name of the vendor’s solicitor, and Hurst will then examine the title and do the needful. No time should be lost in arranging this, as the examination of the title should take place, while the old fishman is moving. Roworth* is to send all my proofs to you. I have taken the liberty of having them sent to W. P——,† as I thought they would then be sure to meet your eye. I send the Map. When we again meet, which I trust will be right speedily, I hope to have a vigorous account of your movements, particularly as regards the foreign correspondence. I mention Hurst, as I think, after what has passed, it will be better; and he is used to deeds of partnership and agreements for services, &c.”

Mr. Disraeli himself proceeded, in common with Mr. Murray, to make arrangements for the foreign correspondence. In the summer of 1824—before the new enterprise was thought of—he had travelled in the Rhine country, and made some pleasant acquaintances, of whom he now bethought himself when making arrangements for the new paper. One of them was Mr. Maas, of the Trierscher Hof, Coblentz, and Mr. Disraeli addressed him as follows:—

* Printer of the Quarterly in Bell Yard, Fleet Street.

† A house in Whitehall Place which Mr. Murray had taken as his private residence.

Mr. B. Disraeli to Mr. Maas.

October 25th, 1825. Dear Sir,

Your hospitality, which I have twice enjoyed, convinces me that you will not consider this as an intrusion. My friend, Mr. Murray, of Albemarle Street, London, the most eminent publisher that we have, is about to establish a daily journal of the first importance. With his great influence and connections, there is no doubt that he will succeed in his endeavour to make it the focus of the information of the whole world. Among other places at which he wishes to have correspondents is the Rhine, and he has applied to me for my advice upon this point. It has struck me that Coblentz is a very good situation for intelligence. Its proximity to the Rhine and the Moselle, its contiguity to the beautiful baths of the Taunus, and the innumerable travellers who pass through it, and spread everywhere the fame of your admirable hotel, all conduce to make it a place from which much interesting intelligence might be procured. The most celebrated men in Europe have promised their assistance to Mr. Murray in his great project. I wish to know whether you can point out any one to him who will occasionally write him a letter from your city. Intelligence as to the company at Wiesbaden and Ems, and of the persons of eminence, particularly English, who pass through Coblentz, of the travellers down the Rhine, and such topics, are very interesting to us. You yourself would make a most admirable correspondent. The labour would be very light and very agreeable; and Mr. Murray would take care to acknowledge your kindness by various courtesies. If you object to say anything about politics you can omit mentioning the subject. I wish you would undertake it, as I am sure you would write most agreeable letters. Once a month would be sufficient, or rather write whenever you have anything that you think interesting. Will you be so kind as to write me in answer what you think of this proposal? The communication may be carried on in any language you please.

Last year when I was at Coblentz you were kind enough to show me a very pretty collection of ancient glass. Pray is it yet to be purchased? I think I know an English gentleman who would be happy to possess it. I hope this will not be the last letter which passes between us.

I am, dear Sir, Yours most truly, B. Disraeli.

Mr. Maas agreed to Mr. Disraeli’s proposal, and his letter was handed to Mr. Murray, who gave him further instructions as to the foreign correspondence which he required. Mr. Murray himself wrote to correspondents at Hamburg, Maestricht, Genoa, Trieste, Gibraltar, and other places, with the same object. We give one of his letters as fairly representing the tenor of all.

John Murray to Mr. H. Bynner, Trieste.

London, Albemarle Street, October 1825. Dear Sir,

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your valuable communications dated the 6th and 8th inst. I feel confident that in you I have found a correspondent whose diligence, talent and discretion will do justice to my wishes.

With respect to the point of remuneration, I fully comprehend your feeling, and I have only to remark that I trust my character is a guarantee to you, that when the time of distribution arrives your services will be appreciated in the most liberal manner.

The publication of my journal was to have been commenced on the 1 st of the ensuing November. Reasons of great weight have occasioned its delay until the beginning of the year, when it will infallibly take place. No prospectuses will be published, but, in confidence, I acquaint you with its leading features.

It will be conducted by many of our first political and literary characters, who will, through the medium of its columns, address the public upon every topic which can interest them. I wish to make this journal the focus of the information of the whole world. I wish you therefore not to confine your observations and remarks to mere news, but to give us an account of everything of interest which passes under your observation. It is of course difficult in a letter to give you an idea of my wishes, but that you may form some slight one, I wish you to write to me as to your friend in London in a familiar and perfectly unconstrained manner, without troubling yourself in the least about style or set composition. Any curious anecdote, any discovery in science, any singular incident or adventure, in short, everything which forms the conversation of the best society of Trieste, interests, doubtless, all of us in England.

As to politics, my object is nothing more than to obtain the truth. Do me the favour, therefore, to divest yourself of all party prejudice, and endeavour to give me an impartial and accurate account of what passes.

You will be the best judge at what time to commence your operations. You must have much to say, however, which is not merely current intelligence, and which must be always interesting; such, for instance, as your account of the “Steam Boats” It might therefore be desirable for you regularly to continue your correspondence upon these topics. In that case I shall consider your services as commencing the first of this inst. You will, however, follow your own judgment on this head. If you think it more expedient to drop your communications for a few weeks, at any rate write me another immediate letter in answer to this.

If I can be of any service to you in England it will give me much pleasure.

I am, dear Sir, your most obedient servant, John Murray.

What Mr. Murray himself thought of the scheme may be inferred from his letter to Mr. William Jerdan, who had wished him success in his enterprise.

John Murray to Mr. Wm. Jerdan.

“Few things of this kind have, I believe, been commenced with more enlarged views or more honourable intentions, or, perhaps, with more extensive and powerful means of giving them effect; but I am not less sensible to the risk of so complicated an enterprise, however well imagined, from the difficulty of its execution. I have never attempted anything with more considerate circumspection, or with more satisfactory hopes of success, but no one can form an estimate of a publication of this kind until it is published, so accept my best thanks for your good wishes.”

The time for the publication of the newspaper was rapidly approaching, and Mr. B. Disraeli’s correspondence became fast and furious. He wrote to Mr. Murray as to the engagement of Mr. W. H. Watts as a parliamentary reporter and general adviser at a salary of £350 per annum:—

Mr. B. Disraeli to John Murray.

November 23rd, 1825. My dear Sir,

Leave a note for Mr. Watts, and request him to come on to Bloomsbury Square, where you will meet him to execute. I want to see you immediately. A letter of Lockhart of the first importance, which will throw some light upon the machinations of the junta of official scamps who have too long enslaved you.

Yours affectionately, B. D.

December, 1825. My dear Sir,

The sensation about the paper is very great. A meeting of the proprietors of the New Times was held yesterday, in order to conciliate the reporters, whom they have universally offended. I have received two letters from Watts, and in consequence have engaged Mr. Hall* and a Mr. Windyer, sen., both of whom we shall find

* This was Mr. Sydney Carter Hall, afterwards editor of the Art Journal and author of many important works.

most excellent reporters and men of business. The latter has been on the Times. Mr. Hall and Mr. Windyer will call on me to-morrow at 10 for their agreements, and I shall give them a note to you to have their agreements executed. I should not have troubled you with this, had it been in my power to have reached you to-day. Pray favour me with a note, informing me whether Hall and Windyer shall call in Whitehall Place or Albemarle Street, and what hour may suit your convenience. It is no use to write to Lockhart after to-day.

Yours ever, B. D.

By the end of December Mr. Lockhart had arrived in London, for the purpose of commencing his editorship of the Quarterly Review. The name of the new morning paper had not then been yet fixed on; from the correspondence respecting it, we find that some spoke of it as the Daily Review, others as the Morning News, and so on; but that Mr. Benjamin Disraeli settled the matter appears from the following letter of Mr. Lockhart to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

December 21st, 1825. My dear Sir,

I am delighted, and, what is more, satisfied with Disraeli’s title—the Representative. If Mr. Powles does not produce some thundering objection, let this be fixed, in God’s name.

Strange to say, from this time forward nothing more is heard of Mr. Benjamin Disraeli in connection with the Representative. After his two journeys to Scotland, his interviews with Sir Walter Scott and Mr. Lockhart, his activity in making arrangements previous to the starting of the daily paper, his communications with the architect as to the purchase and fitting up of the premises in Great George Street, and with the solicitors as to the proposed deed of partnership, he suddenly drops out of sight; and nothing more is heard of him in connection with the business.

It would appear that when the time arrived for the proprietors of the new paper to provide the necessary capital under the terms of the memorandum of agreement dated the 3rd August, 1825, both Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Powles failed to contribute their several proportions. Mr. Murray had indeed already spent a considerable sum, and entered into agreements for the purchase of printing-offices, printing-machines, types, and all the paraphernalia of a newspaper establishment. He had engaged reporters, correspondents, printers, sub-editors, though he still wanted an efficient editor. He was greatly disappointed at not being able to obtain the services of Mr. Lockhart. Mr. Disraeli was too young—being then only twenty-one, and entirely inexperienced in the work of conducting a daily paper—to be entrusted with the editorship. Indeed, it is doubtful whether he ever contemplated occupying that position, though he had engaged himself most sedulously in the preliminary arrangements in one department, his endeavours to obtain the assistance of men of commerce in the City; however, he was by no means successful.

Nevertheless, Mr. Murray was so far committed that he felt bound to go on with the enterprise, and he advertised the publication of the new morning paper. Some of his friends congratulated him on the announcement, trusting that they might see on their breakfast-table a paper which their wives and daughters might read without a blush.

Professor W. T. Brande, F.R.S., then Assayist at the Mint, and Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institute, wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Professor W. T. Brande to John Murray.

January 2nd, 1826.

Sir H. Davy has been making himself very busy about a review of Humboldt, and is extremely sore at Mr. Daniell’s paper which appeared in late numbers [of ‘Brande’s Journal of Science,’ published by Mr. Murray]. He told me he had spoken to you on the subject. Pray pay no kind of attention to this exceedingly impertinent interference of that self-constituted autocrat of science, who, if he continues to intermeddle, may receive a lesson through the ‘Journal’ that shall teach him better manners. It pleases me to think that we shall at last have a daily paper, of sound politics, and fit to place upon our breakfast table; for I am sure you will exclude from it the filthy details of crim. con. cases, the examination of drunkards and prostitutes at Bow Street, the condemned sermons at Newgate, and the last dying speeches and confessions, with the behaviour at the gallows, of culprits. I think I shall be able now and then to send you five or ten lines. I could have given you a very curious document or two respecting the late pressure of business at the Mint.

Others, of considerable newspaper experience, warned him of the heavy risk and expense he must be put to before he could reap a farthing of profit from his adventure. Matters, however, had gone too far; he could not now retreat. These warnings were put to one side, and he determined to go on; in fact, he could not avoid it. The first number of the Representative accordingly appeared on the 25th of January, 1826, price 7d.; the Stamp Tax being then 4d. In politics it was a supporter of Lord Liverpool’s Government; but public distress, the currency, trade and commerce were subjects of independent comment.

Notwithstanding the pains which had been taken, and the money which had been spent, the Representative was a failure from the beginning. It was badly organized, badly edited, and its contents—leading articles, home and foreign news—were ill-balanced. Failing Lockhart, an editor, named Tyndale, had been appointed on short notice, though he was an obscure and uninfluential person. He soon disappeared in favour of others, who were no better. Dr. Maginn had been engaged—the Morgan O’Doherty of Blackwood’s Magazine—wit, scholar, and Bohemian. He was sent to Paris, where he evidently enjoyed himself; but the results, as regarded the Representative, were by no means satisfactory. He was better at borrowing money than at writing articles.

Mr. S. C. Hall, one of the parliamentary reporters of the paper, says, in his ‘Retrospect of a Long Life,’ that:—

“The day preceding the issue of the first number, Mr. Murray might have obtained a very large sum for a share of the copyright, of which he was the sole proprietor; the day after that issue, the copyright was worth comparatively nothing. . . . Editor there was literally none, from the beginning to the end. The first number supplied conclusive evidence of the utter ignorance of editorial tact on the part of the person entrusted with the duty. . . . In short, the work was badly done; if not a snare, it was a delusion; and the reputation of the new journal fell below zero in twenty-four hours.”*

An inspection of the file of the Representative justifies Mr. Hall’s remarks. The first number contained an article by Lockhart, four columns in length, on the affairs of Europe. It was correct and scholar-like, but tame and colourless. Incorrectness in a leading article may be tolerated, but dulness amounts almost to literary crime. The foreign correspondence consisted of a letter from Valetta, and a communication from Paris, more than a column in length, relating to French opera. In the matter

* ‘Retrospect of a Long Life, from 1815 to 1883.’ By S. C. Hall, F.S.A., i. p. 126.

of news, for which the dailies are principally purchased, the first number was exceedingly defective. It is hard to judge of the merits of a new journal from the first number, which must necessarily labour under many disadvantages, but the Representative did not from the first exhibit any element of success.

The leading articles in the first numbers were too few, too long, and wanted variety. Then they were shortened into paragraphs; and sometimes, during the appearance of the parliamentary reports, they disappeared altogether. Proceedings in the courts of law were well reported, though these are not very interesting to general readers. The foreign correspondence improved in length and quality, but the home news was neglected—the fault, no doubt, of the sub-editor. Sometimes the leading articles and other contributions were good; but, on the whole, the four pages of the Representative were not attractive. When the advertisements shrunk away, as they soon did, there was more room for news, as well as for the advertisements of Mr. Murray’s own books. Had there been no other morning paper, the Representative might have succeeded, but it could not stand against the powerful competition which even then existed.

Mr. Murray knew that the chief defect of the paper was the want of an able organizer and editor. Mr. S. C. Hall has informed us that on one occasion Mr. Murray encountered a friend in the Strand, who, after a little conversation with him, accompanied him to a cab, and gave the driver orders to go to 14, Whitehall Place. Mr. Murray, however, before the cab drove off, beckoned his friend back. “What is it, Mr. Murray? what do you want?” “I want an editor! I want an editor!” This was his constant cry; but a cry which was never satisfied. He engaged as his literary adviser a retired clergyman, Edwards by name, who, however, proved of no use, and went out of his way to criticise Mr. Lockhart as editor of the Quarterly, and to condemn the contributions of Barrow, Ellis, and Southey—men who had in a great measure assisted in the establishment of the Review.

It is not surprising that in these circumstances, deprived of any efficient helpers, Mr. Murray found his new enterprise an increasing source of annoyance and worry. His health broke down under the strain, and when he was confined to his bed by illness, things went worse from day to day. The usual publishing business was neglected; letters remained unanswered, manuscripts remained unread, and some correspondents became excessively angry at their communications being neglected. Mr. Murray had many private sympathisers. Among these were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. John Taylor, formerly proprietor of the Sun, Mrs. Graham, and many others. Mr. Mitchell wrote to Mr. Lockhart as follows:—

Mr. T. Mitchell to Mr. Lockhart. February 3rd, 1826.

“I have been made seriously uneasy by a communication which has recently been made to me of the state of our friend Murray’s health, and by a continued silence on his part, which leads me to fear that the communication is too well founded. . . . Other rumours have been afloat in the daily papers, to which it would perhaps be impertinent in me to allude more closely; but there are public men of such high character, that no misfortune can happen to them without individuals feeling as if it were their own private calamity.”

And Mr. Lockhart himself wrote to Murray:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

February 7th, 1826. My Dear Murray,

That I should have been in any measure accessory to bringing you into the present situation weighs, I assure you, more heavily on my spirits than even the mass of domestic melancholy with which I am at present surrounded. What I can do in any way is always at your service, but even the depression is proof enough that I have not the iron nerves of the man fitted for daily collision with the world. I hope you have never for a moment supposed it possible that I should add to your embarrassments by being willing to touch unearned gold. The Quarterly Review, I think, promises well. Let us hope for better days. If something very effectual be not done for the mechanical arrangements in the course of a few days, I shall undoubtedly return to the opinion which we carried with us one day to Mr. Powles.

Very sincerely yours, J. G. L.

The rumours alluded to by Mr. Mitchell related to the commercial crisis then prevailing, and to the downfall of many large publishing houses; and it was feared that Mr. Murray might be implicated in the failures. At the end of January, the great firm of Alexander Constable & Co., of Edinburgh, publishers of Sir Walter Scott’s novels, was declared bankrupt; shortly after, the failure was announced of James Ballantyne & Co., in which Sir Walter Scott was a partner; and with these houses, that of Hurst, Robinson & Co., of London, was hopelessly involved. The market was flooded with the dishonoured papers of all these concerns, and mercantile confidence in the great publishing houses was almost at an end. We find Washington Irving communicating the following intelligence to A. H. Everett, United States Minister at Madrid (January 31st, 1826):—

“You will perceive by the papers the failure of Constable & Co., at Edinburgh, and Hurst, Robinson & Co., at London. These are severe shocks in the trading world of literature. Pray Heaven, Murray may stand unmoved, and not go into the Gazette, instead of publishing one!”

Mr. Murray held his ground. He was not only able to pay his way, but to assist some of the best-known London publishers through the pressure of their difficulties. One of these was Mr. Robert Baldwin, of Paternoster Row, who expressed his repeated obligations to Mr. Murray for his help in time of need. The events of this crisis clearly demonstrated the wisdom and foresight of Murray in breaking loose from the Ballantyne and Constable connection, in spite of the promising advantages which it had offered him. He was now rewarded for the resolution with which he had refused to discount and renew their constantly increasing bills. Had Sir Walter Scott adopted the same course, he might have been a rich man instead of a poor one; though we might not have had the grand lesson of his fighting against time, to meet the dishonoured bills of the Edinburgh publishers, and to pay their debts as well as his own. In the fervency of his manly anxiety to fulfil his pecuniary engagements, he considered every hour mis-spent which did not directly contribute to the accomplishment of that noble end.

Murray still went on with the Representative, though the result was increasing annoyance and vexation. Mr. Milman wrote to him, “Do get a new editor for the lighter part of your paper, and look well to the Quarterly.” The advice was taken, and Dr. Maginn was brought over from Paris to take charge of the lighter part of the paper at a salary of £700 a year, with a house. The result was, that a number of clever jeux d’esprit were inserted by him, but these were intermingled with some biting articles, which gave considerable offence. In one of these Sir James Mackintosh was introduced, on which Mrs. Graham, a contributor to the paper, wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mrs. Graham to John Murray.

“I cannot refrain from telling you that some of Sir James Mackintosh’s friends are more vexed than I think so very stupid a paragraph deserves. What could possess your sub-editor to defile your paper with a thing so foolish and so bad-hearted? I hope I never saw the wretch—whoever he is. I feel almost disgraced by having a word of mine on the same page. However, for your sake, I will do my best on the subjects you wish.”

It was no slight aggravation of Mr. Murray’s troubles that he was held personally responsible for the writings of others; for the editor, whoever he might be, was unknown, while Mr. Murray was accessible to everybody. At length the strain became more than he could bear, and he sought the first opportunity for stopping the further publication of the paper. On the 6th of June, Thomas Mitchell, in one of his letters, asked Mr. Murray, “Have you yet got rid of the Representative ?” A general election, however, was in progress, and, moreover, the management of the paper was showing considerable improvement, and flagging hopes revived. But it was too late. The early issues of the Representative had seriously injured it, and the damage could not now be redressed. Accordingly, after the general election was over, the Representative ceased to exist on the 29th of July 1826, after a career of only six months, during which brief period it had involved Mr. Murray in a loss of not less than £26,000*

Mr. Murray bore his loss with much equanimity, and found it an inexpressible relief to be rid of the Representative even at such a sacrifice. To Washington Irving he wrote:—

John Murray to Mr. Irving.

“One cause of my not writing to you during one whole year was my ‘entanglement,’ as Lady G—— says, with a newspaper, which absorbed my money, and distracted and depressed my mind; but I have cut the knot of evil, which I could not untie, and am now, by the blessing of God, again returned to reason and the shop.”

One of the unfortunate results of the initiation and publication of the Representative was that it disturbed the friendship which had so long existed between Mr. Murray and Mr. Isaac D’Israeli. The real cause of Benjamin’s sudden dissociation from an enterprise, of which in its earlier stages he had been the moving spirit, can only be matter of conjecture. The only mention of his name in the later correspondence regarding the newspaper occurs in the following letter:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

Thursday, February 14th, 1826.

I think Mr. B. Disraeli ought to tell you what it is that he wishes to say to Mr. Croker on a business of yours ere he asks of you a letter to the Secretary. If there really be something worth saying, I certainly know nobody that would say it better, but I confess I think, all things con-

* The Representative was afterwards incorporated with the New Times, another unfortunate paper.

sidered, you have no need of anybody to come between you and Mr. Croker. What can it be?

Yours, J. G. L.

But after the Representative had ceased to be published, the elder D’Israeli thought he had a cause of quarrel with Mr. Murray, and proposed to publish a pamphlet on the subject. The matter was brought under the notice of Mr. Sharon Turner, the historian and solicitor, and the friend of both. Mr. Turner strongly advised Mr. Isaac D’Israeli to abstain from issuing any such publication.

Mr. Sharon Turner to Mr. D’Israeli. October 6th, 1826.

“Fame is pleasant, if it arise from what will give credit or do good. But to make oneself notorious only to be the football of all the dinner-tables, tea-tables, and gossiping visits of the country, will be so great a weakness, that until I see you actually committing yourself to it, I shall not believe that you, at an age like my own, can wilfully and deliberately do anything that will bring the evil on you. Therefore I earnestly advise that whatever has passed be left as it is. . . . If you give it any further publicity, you will, I think, cast a shade over a name that at present stands quite fair before the public eye. And nothing can dim it to you that will not injure all who belong to you. Therefore, as I have said to Murray, I say to you; Let Oblivion absorb the whole question as soon as possible, and do not stir a step to rescue it from her salutary power. . . If I did not see your words before me, I could not have supposed that after your experience of these things and of the world, you could deliberately intend to write—that is, to publish in print—anything on the differences between you, Murray, and the Representative, and your son. . . . If you do, Murray will be driven to answer. To him the worst that can befall will be the public smile that he could have embarked in a speculation that has cost him many thousand pounds, and a criticism on what led to it. . . . The public know it, and talk as they please about it, but in a short time will say no more upon it. It is now dying away. Very few at present know that you were in any way concerned about it. To you, therefore, all that results will be new matter for the public discussion and censure. And, after reading Benjamin’s agreement of the 3rd August, 1825, and your letters to Murray on him and the business, of the 27th September, the 29th September, and the 9th October, my sincere opinion is that you cannot, with a due regard to your own reputation, write or publish anything about it. I send you hastily my immediate thoughts, that he whom I have always respected may not, by publishing what will be immediately contradicted, diminish or destroy in others that respect which at present he possesses, and which I hope he will continue to enjoy.”

Mr. D’Israeli did not write his proposed pamphlet, and thereby give room for literary gossip. What Mr. Murray thought of his intention may be inferred from the following extract from his letter to Mr. Sharon Turner:—

John Murray to Mr. Sharon Turner. October 16th, 1826.

“Mr. D’Israeli is totally wrong in supposing that my indignation against his son arises in the smallest degree from the sum which I have lost by yielding to that son’s unrelenting excitement and importunity; this loss, whilst it was in weekly operation, may be supposed, and naturally enough, to have been sufficiently painful, but now that it has ceased, I solemnly declare that I neither care nor think about it, more than one does of the long-suffered agonies of an aching tooth the day after we have summoned resolution enough to have it extracted. On the contrary, I am disposed to consider this apparent misfortune as one of that chastening class which, if suffered wisely, may be productive of greater good, and I feel confidently that, as it has re-kindled my ancient ardour in business, a very few months will enable me to replace this temporary loss, and make me infinitely the gainer, if I profit by the prudential lesson which this whole affair is calculated to teach. . . . From me his son had received nothing but the most unbounded confidence and parental attachment; my fault was in having loved, not wisely, but too well.”

Fortunately, the misunderstanding between these two old friends did not last long, for towards the end of the year we find Mr. Isaac D’Israeli communicating with Mr. Murray respecting Wool’s ‘Life of Joseph Warton,’ and certain selected letters by Warton which he thought worthy of re-publication; and with respect to his son, Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, although he published his first work, ‘Vivian Grey,’ through Colburn, he returned to Albemarle Street a few years later, and published his ‘Contarini Fleming’ through Mr. Murray.

CHAPTER XXVII. MR. LOCKHART AS EDITOR OF THE ‘QUARTERLY’—HALLAM—WORDSWORTH—BASIL HALL—DEATH OF CONSTABLE.

We have in the last chapter forestalled the appointment of Lockhart as Editor of the Quarterly Review. Mr. Coleridge had conscientiously set himself to carry out the task he had assumed as Mr. Gifford’s successor; he wrote for each number of the Quarterly, and spared no pains in the fulfilment of the duties of his post. Soon after his appointment, however, he became so absorbed in his professional engagements, that after the issue of four numbers, he was obliged to resign his position. His engagements at the Bar had nearly doubled during the year that he remained Editor,* and he merely held the Editorship until a competent successor could be appointed.

We have already described in detail the negotiations which led to the acceptance of the post by Mr. Lockhart. In addition to various Reviews and Essays, he had already published one or two books anonymously,† but as an author he was chiefly known by his admirable metrical translation of ‘The Ancient Spanish Ballads, Historical and Romantic,’ published in 1823, which proved him to be a poet of fine genius. Before he accepted the Editorship

* He eventually became the Right Hon. John Taylor Coleridge, one of the Judges of the Court of King’s Bench.

† 1. Peter’s ‘Letters to his Kinsfolk,’ 1819; 2. ‘Valerius, a Roman Story,’ 1821; 3. ‘Adam Blair, a Novel,’ 1822.

he had many letters from the old contributors, warning him, and cautioning him, as to the performance of his duties. Some even went so far as to pronounce him unequal to the task. These expressions reached the ears of Sir Walter Scott, and drew from him the following remarkable letter:—

Sir Walter Scott to John Murray.

Abbotsford. November 17th, 1825. My dear Sir,

I was much surprised to-day to learn from Lockhart by letter that some scruples were in circulation among some of the respectable among the supporters of the Quarterly Review concerning his capacity to undertake that highly responsible task. In most cases I might not be considered as a disinterested witness on behalf of so near a connection, but in the present instance I have some claim to call myself so. The plan (I need not remind you) of calling Lockhart to this distinguished situation, far from being favoured by me, or in any respect advanced or furthered by such interest as I might have urged, was not communicated to me until it was formed; and as it involved the removal of my daughter and of her husband, who has always loved and honoured me as a son, from their native country and from my vicinity, my private wish and that of all the members of my family was that such a change should not take place. But the advantages proposed were so considerable, that it removed all title on my part to state my own strong desire that he should remain in Scotland. Now I do assure you that if in these circumstances I had seen anything in Lockhart’s habits, cast of mind, or mode of thinking or composition which made him unfit for the duty he had to undertake, I should have been the last man in the world to permit, without the strongest expostulation not with him alone but with you, his exchanging an easy and increasing income in his own country and amongst his own friends for a larger income perhaps, but a highly responsible situation in London. I considered this matter very attentively, and recalled to my recollection all I had known of Mr. Lockhart both before and since his connection with my family. I have no hesitation in saying that when he was paying his addresses in my family I fairly stated to him that however I might be pleased with his general talents and accomplishments, with his family, which is highly respectable, and his views in life, which I thought satisfactory, I did decidedly object to the use he and others had made of their wit and satirical talent in Blackwood’s Magazine, which, though a work of considerable power, I thought too personal to be in good taste or to be quite respectable. Mr. Lockhart then pledged his word to me that he would withdraw from this species of warfare, and I have every reason to believe that he has kept his word with me. In particular I know that he had not the least concern with the Beacon newspaper, though strongly urged by his young friends at the Bar, and I also know that while he has sometimes contributed an essay to Blackwood on general literature, or politics, which can be referred to if necessary, he has no connection whatever with the satirical part of the work or with its general management, nor was he at any time the Editor of the publication.

It seems extremely hard (though not perhaps to be wondered at) that the follies of three- or four-and-twenty should be remembered against a man of thirty, who has abstained during the interval from giving the least cause of offence. There are few men of any rank in letters who have not at some time or other been guilty of some abuse of their satirical powers, and very few who have not seen reason to wish that they had restrained their vein of pleasantry. Thinking over Lockhart’s offences with my own, and other men’s whom either politics or literary controversy has led into such effusions, I cannot help thinking that five years’ proscription ought to obtain a full immunity on their account. There were none of them which could be ascribed to any worse motive than a wicked wit, and many of the individuals against whom they were directed were worthy of more severe chastisement. The blame was in meddling with such men at all. Lockhart is reckoned an excellent scholar, and Oxford has said so. He is born a gentleman, has always kept the best society, and his personal character is without a shadow of blame. In the most unfortunate affair of his life he did all that man could do, and the unhappy tragedy was the result of the poor sufferer’s after-thought to get out of a scrape. Of his general talents I will not presume to speak, but they are generally allowed to be of the first order. This, however, I will say, that I have known the most able men of my time, and I never met any one who had such ready command of his own mind, or possessed in a greater degree the power of making his talents available upon the shortest notice, and upon any subject. He is also remarkably docile and willing to receive advice or admonition from the old and experienced. He is a fond husband and almost a doating father, seeks no amusement out of his own family, and is not only addicted to no bad habits, but averse to spending time in society or the dissipations connected with it. Speaking upon my honour as a gentleman and my credit as a man of letters, I do not know a person so well qualified for the very difficult and responsible task he has undertaken, and I think the distinct testimony of one who must know the individual well ought to bear weight against all vague rumours, whether arising from idle squibs he may have been guilty of when he came from College—and I know none of these which indicate a bad heart in the jester—or, as is much more likely, from those which have been rashly and falsely ascribed to him.

Had any shadow of this want of confidence been expressed in the beginning of the business I for one would have advised Lockhart to have nothing to do with a concern for which his capacity was called in question. But now what can be done? A liberal offer, handsomely made, has been accepted with the same confidence with which it was offered. Lockhart has resigned his office in Edinburgh, given up his business, taken a house in London, and has let, or is on the eve of letting, his house here. The thing is so public, that about thirty of the most respectable gentlemen in Edinburgh have proposed to me that a dinner should be given in his honour. The ground is cut away behind him for a retreat, nor can such a thing be proposed as matters now stand.

Upon what grounds or by whom Lockhart was first recommended to you I have no right or wish to inquire, having no access whatsoever to the negotiation, the result of which must be in every wise painful enough to me. But as their advice must in addition to your own judgment have had great weight with you, I conceive they will join with me in the expectation that the other respectable friends of this important work will not form any decision to Lockhart’s prejudice till they shall see how the business is conducted. By a different conduct they may do harm to the Editor, Publisher, and the work itself, as far as the withdrawing of their countenance must necessarily be prejudicial to its currency. But if it shall prove that their suspicions prove unfounded, I am sure it will give pain to them to have listened to them for a moment.

It has been my lot twice before now to stand forward to the best of my power as the assistant of two individuals against whom a party run was made. The one case was that of Wilson, to whom a thousand idle pranks were imputed of a character very different and far more eccentric than anything that ever attached to Lockhart. We carried him through upon the fair principle that in the case of good morals and perfect talents for a situation, where vice or crimes are not alleged, the follies of youth should not obstruct the fair prospects of advanced manhood. God help us all if some such modification of censure is not extended to us, since most men have sown wild oats enough! Wilson was made a professor, as you know, has one of the fullest classes in the University, lectures most eloquently, and is much beloved by his pupils. The other was the case of John Williams, now Rector of our new Academy here, who was opposed most violently upon what on examination proved to be exaggerated rumours of old Winchester stories. He got the situation chiefly, I think, by my own standing firm and keeping others together. And the gentlemen who opposed him most violently have repeatedly told me that I did the utmost service to the Academy by bringing him in, for never was a man in such a situation so eminently qualified for the task of education.

I only mention these things to show that it is not in my son-in-law’s affairs alone that I would endeavour to remove that sort of prejudice which envy and party zeal are always ready to throw in the way of rising talent. Those who are interested in the matter may be well assured that with whatever prejudice they may receive Lockhart at first, all who have candour enough to wait till he can afford them the means of judging will be of opinion that they have got a person possibly as well situated for the duties of such an office as any man that England could afford them.

I would rather have written a letter of this kind concern-ing any other person than one connected with myself, but it is every word true, were there neither son nor daughter in the case; but as such I leave it at your discretion to show it, not generally, but to such friends and patrons of the Review as in your opinion have a title to know the contents.

Believe me, dear Sir, Your most obedient Servant, Walter Scott .

Mr. Lockhart himself addressed the two following letters to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

Chiefswood, November 19th, 1825. My dear Sir,

I am deeply indebted to Disraeli for the trouble he has taken to come hither again at a time when he has so many matters of real importance to attend to in London. The sort of stuff that certain grave gentlemen have been mincing at, was of course thoroughly foreseen by Sir W. Scott and by myself from the beginning of the business. Such prejudices I cannot hope to overcome, except by doing well what has been entrusted to me, and after all I should like to know what man could have been put at the head of the Quarterly Review at my time of life without having the Doctors uttering doctorisms on the occasion. If you but knew it, you yourself personally could in one moment overcome and silence for ever the whole of these people. As for me, nobody has more sincere respect for them in their own different walks of excellence than myself; and if there be one thing that I may promise for myself, it is, that age, experience, and eminence, shall never find fair reason to accuse me of treating them with presumption. I am much more afraid of falling into the opposite error. I have written at some length on these matters to Mr. Croker, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Rose—and to no one else; nor will I again put pen to paper, unless some one, having a right to put a distinct question to me, does put it.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

Sunday, Chiefswood, Nov. 27th, 1825. My dear Murray,

I have read the letter I received yesterday evening with the greatest interest, and closed it with the sincerest pleasure. I think we now begin to understand each other, and if we do that I am sure I have no sort of apprehension as to the result of the whole business. But in writing one must come to the point, therefore I proceed at once to your topics in their order, and rely on it I shall speak as openly on every one of them as I would to my brother.

Mr. Croker’s behaviour has indeed distressed me, for I had always considered him as one of those bad enemies who make excellent friends. I had not the least idea that he had ever ceased to regard you personally with friendship, even affection, until B. D. told me about his trafficking with Knight; for as to the little hints you gave me when in town, I set all that down to his aversion for the notion of your setting up a paper, and thereby dethroning him from his invisible predominance over the Tory daily press, and of course attached little importance to it. I am now satisfied, more particularly after hearing how he behaved himself in the interview with you, that there is some deeper feeling in his mind. The correspondence that has been passing between him and me may have been somewhat imprudently managed on my part. I may have committed myself to a certain extent in it in more ways than one. It is needless to regret what cannot be undone; at all events, I perceive that it is now over with us for the present. I do not, however, believe but that he will continue to do what he has been used to do for the Review; indeed, unless he makes the newspaper business his excuse, he stands completely pledged to me to adhere to that.

But with reverence be it spoken, even this does not seem to me a matter of very great moment. On the contrary, I believe that his papers in the Review have (with a few exceptions) done the work a great deal more harm than good. I cannot express what I feel; but there was always the bitterness of Gifford without his dignity, and the bigotry of Southey without his bonne-foi . His scourging of such poor deer as Lady Morgan was unworthy of a work of that rank. If we can get the same information elsewhere, no fear that we need equally regret the secretary’s quill. As it is, we must be contented to watch the course of things and recollect the Roman’s maxim, “quæ casus obtulerint ad sapientiam vertenda.”

I am vexed not a little at Mr. Barrow’s imprudence in mentioning my name to Croker and to Rose as in connection with the paper; and for this reason that I was most anxious to have produced at least one number of the Review ere that matter should have been at all suspected. As it is, I hope you will still find means to make Barrow, Rose, and Croker (at all events the two last) completely understand that you had, indeed, wished me to edit the paper, but that I had declined that, and that then you had offered me the Review.

No matter what you say as to the firm belief I have expressed that the paper will answer, and the resolutions I have made to assist you by writing political articles in it. It is of the highest importance that in our anxiety about a new affair one should not lose sight of the old and established one, and I can believe that if the real state of the case were known at the outset of my career in London, a considerable feeling detrimental to the Quarterly might be excited. We have enough of adverse feelings to meet, without unnecessarily swelling their number and aggravating their quality.

I beg you to have a serious conversation with Mr. Barrow on this head, and in the course of it take care to make him thoroughly understand that the prejudices or doubts he gave utterance to in regard to me were heard of by me without surprise, and excited no sort of angry feeling whatever. He could know nothing of me but from flying rumours, for the nature of which he could in no shape be answerable. As for poor Rose’s well-meant hints about my “identifying myself perhaps in the mind of society with the scavengers of the press,” “the folly of your risking your name on a paper” &c. &c., of course we shall equally appreciate all this. Rose is a timid dandy, and a bit of a Whig to boot. I shall make some explanation to him when I next have occasion to write to him, but that sort of thing would come surely with a better grace from you than from me. I have not a doubt that he will be a daily scribbler in your paper ere it is a week old.

To all these people—Croker as well as the rest—John Murray is of much more importance than they ever can be to him if he will only believe what I know, viz. that his own name in society stands miles above any of theirs. Croker cannot form the nucleus of a literary association which you have any reason to dread. He is hated by the higher Tories quite as sincerely as by the Whigs: besides, he has not now-a-days courage to strike an effective blow; he will not come forward.

I come to pleasanter matters. Nothing, indeed, can be more handsome, more generous than Mr. Coleridge’s whole behaviour. I beg of you to express to him the sense I have of the civility with which he has been pleased to remember and allude to me, and assure him that I am most grateful for the assistance he offers, and accept of it to any extent he chooses. I shall be most happy to have his paper on the West Indies as soon as he finds it convenient to do it, and shall wait upon him as soon as I get to London, in order that I may have the benefit of his advice and instruction as to the affairs of the Review in general. I hope Mr. Southey will execute the proposed article on the Law Society, a subject which I should think is eminently suited for him, and trust that you will put him in possession of the materials he requires forthwith if you have not already done so.

The subject of Medical Jurisprudence is one which I think ought to be taken up in the Quarterly Review. Two very good English books have recently been published on this subject, but neither of them equal to the great French one they pillage. The topic is interesting, or ought to be so, to every man who is liable to act as a grand juryman, and it is in that view, and with relation to that class, that I should wish to see a luminous article written by some first-rate hand. Could Mr. Laurence* do this? at all events, could you consult with him in regard to it? What an amusing essay Southey could write if he had those books before him! but then he would want the scientific knowledge.

I have had a great deal of conversation with Scott about Byron. He desires me to tell you, in the first place, that it is his decided opinion you ought forthwith to put forth a complete edition of all his works, ‘Don Juan’ and everything. It was right in you not to encourage even him in the writing of such things when he might be writing others.

* The eminent surgeon.

But he is now dead, and he is a great English classic; and you ought to give an edition of him with exactly the same feeling as you might one of Massinger, or, indeed, Shakespeare. ‘Othello’ has more filth, and the ‘Merry Wives’ as much blasphemy as all the works of Byron can furnish. A proper preface would set all this in its true light, and you would bring a most valuable property into the market, which no one else can do. Further, Sir W. is of opinion that an article on the Life and Writings of Byron ought to appear immediately in the Quarterly Review. If it do not, undoubtedly such an one will be attempted ere long in the Edinburgh, and why should we lose the credit of daring to speak out both the ill and the good which in justice and manliness ought to be spoken in regard to the most remarkable man and poet of our time? I, for my part, think that so far from displeasing any sensible reader of the Quarterly, no fair estimate could be given of his history and his works without conveying a most valuable moral lesson, and therefore gratifying them. Of course we must not think of people whose delusion equals that of Wordsworth, when he calls Voltaire “a dull scoffer of a heartless race:” depend on it there are not many people who are incapable of drawing the line between the genius of Byron and its perversion; and really, if we are to shrink from such subjects, with what face are we to claim attention as representing the literature of England in its course? I persuade myself that Mr. Gifford would take the same view of the matter. Would to God he had strength and spirits to execute what I fear I can only dream of!

I wrote to Disraeli yesterday about my motions southwards. I much regret that it is not possible for me to be in town now before the 10th or 11th; by that last day I can promise that I shall be there. Mrs. Lockhart is most sensible, as well as I, to the kindness with which you and Mrs. Murray have offered us shelter in Whitehall Place. We have connections, however, who would take it amiss did we place ourselves under any private roof but theirs. She has an old godmother in Piccadilly, &c. &c. In short, I believe we must decline your proffered kindness; though, if circumstances should appear to admit of our coming to you, be assured we shall avail ourselves of your hospitalities without hesitation. At all events, I shall be in town and at your service then, and if other arrangements admit of your starting the paper earlier in the year, even at the beginning of it, I certainly shall hold myself prepared to bear my part. I daresay Disraeli has engaged a house ere this reaches you. I hope so, for I have ordered various packages to be sent from Edinburgh to your care, and should be sorry to have them lumbering your warehouses; and, besides, I should like, of course, to be actually settled as soon as possible, for I have formed habits which render it difficult for me to do any serious work out of my own snuggery. I depend on you, then, to set matters right, if possible, with Rose. If you cannot throw dust in his eyes, act decidedly. Tell him the whole story, and any story will be safe with him, for he is a gentleman. But I trust this confidence is unnecessary. I do not choose to write to him on the subject at any length, as I cannot tell to what extent Barrow’s imprudence may have gone, or even had the means of going.

My wife joins me in best compliments and thanks to Mrs. Murray, and I assure you I sign myself with the most perfect sincerity,

Yours, and yours faithfully, J. G. Lockhart .

Sir W. Scott also wrote again on the subject of his previous letter:—

Sir Walter Scott to Mr. Murray.

My Dear Sir,

I have your letter this morning. Besides yourself, I only write to Heber, on whose friendship, long-tried, and prudence, I could perfectly rely; mentioning the rumours in question, and my reasons for being confident that they were perfectly groundless, so far as Lockhart’s temper and disposition were implicated. In fact, I think that in sacrificing a competent revenue, leaving his native country, and quitting at once his views in life and his natural connections, he gives the deepest pledge he can do that no light or trivial temptation could induce him to risk the safety of the concern in which he may now be said to have embarked his all.

If I had not felt absolutely confident that Lockhart had the same deep and serious views in the matter which I have expressed, I would not, for half my fortune, have given my opinion in favour of his removal. I have written also to Southey, not with reference to this subject in particular, but because I thought he might with justice suppose that I knew all about this change while at his house in September, and that I ought to have spoken to him about it as an old friend. I think this was incumbent on me at any rate, and took the opportunity to rectify any opinion which he might have entertained of Lockhart from some passages in Blackwood’s which could not but be disagreeable to himself and Wordsworth, and which I was instructed positively to deny. I thought this species of explanation due to Southey, both as my own much respected friend, and as an old contributor to the Review, indeed a most valued supporter of it. I never thought Mr. Barrow had the least personal ill-will against Lockhart, but it was easy for him to be led into forming an erroneous opinion of his character by hearing old stories imperfectly mixed up with new matter to which he had no access. Some of his earlier flights were certainly not prudent, but I am sure there was none of them different in character from the frolics which young men of talent so often indulge in. I am sure he has now added both prudence and experience to his considerable talents, and hope he will do well for himself and for you.

Believe me, yours very truly, Walter Scott .

What Southey thought of the change of editorship may be inferred from his letter to John Rickman (Dec. 4th, 1825), in which he wrote:—

“I do not know for what reason Murray has thought proper to change his editor. . . . The new editor (Lockhart), Scott’s son-in-law, is a person whom I know only by sight. . . . I lose by the change an editor whom I know, and on whom I can rely; but I am released from any motive for continuing to work at that occupation longer than my own convenience may render necessary.”*

* ‘Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey.’ By the Rev. J. W. Walter, iii. 514.

A few months later, Southey changed his opinion with regard to the editorship; nor did his own convenience render it necessary for him to discontinue the occupation of a Quarterly Reviewer so long as he was capable of writing. He remained a regular contributor down to 1839. “That the Quarterly Review” he wrote in 1826, “is out of John Coleridge’s hands I am (with all my regard for him) heartily glad; for he has got a twist upon the cursed Catholic question;—but in other respects, the change of editors is not for the better.”*

Mr. Coleridge was delighted to give up his charge. When finishing his last number (65), he wrote:—

Mr. J. T. Coleridge to John Murray.

Dec. 21st, 1825.

I have now put the finishing hand to my last number, and return you with this, the little key of your paper box, for Mr. Lockhart’s use. You can hardly believe how light-hearted I feel, or how fortunate I consider myself in being relieved at this moment from a burthen which would have impeded me most seriously in the professional course which seems, and is, I trust, opening upon me. With the best possible wishes for the welfare of the Review and of its proprietor, I remain, my dear Sir,

Yours faithfully, J. T. Coleridge .

The last number of the Quarterly edited by Coleridge was one of his best, and contained articles by two new contributors—Dr. Gooch and Blanco White. That by Dr. Gooch,† on Plague, was one of the most useful essays

* ‘Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey,’ iv. 67.

† Dr. Gooch was a native of Yarmouth; he first practised in Croydon, and subsequently in London. He was a man of great eminence and distinction. Mr. Murray afterwards published for him his work on ‘Diseases Peculiar to Women.’

which had ever appeared in the Review, and it was in consequence of its appearance that the English Quarantine Act was pushed through Parliament by the ministers of the day. Southey said of it: “Perhaps the Q. R. has never contained any single paper that has done so much good as that upon Contagion. It has done its work. Ministers consider it completely conclusive (as most undoubtedly it is), and they are resolved to act on it. If they had been deceived into the opinion of the non-contagionists, it is hardly possible that we should have escaped the Plague.”

Mr. Lockhart succeeded to a most influential position in his control of what his friend John Wilson called “a National Work”; and he justified the selection which Mr. Murray had made of him as editor: not only maintaining and enhancing the reputation of the Review, by securing the friendship of the old contributors, but enlisting the assistance of many new ones. Sir Walter Scott, though “working himself to pieces” to free himself from debt, came to his help, and to the first number which Lockhart edited, he contributed an interesting article on ‘Pepys’ Memoirs.’ Barrow, Mitchell, Southey, Palgrave, and others, contributed excellent papers. Mr. Isaac D’Israeli,—for the crisis of the Representative which was to interrupt his intercourse with Murray had not yet occurred—wrote

Mr. D’Israeli to John Murray.

“It is certainly one of the very best numbers we have long had. The article on Pepys, after so many have been written, is the only one which, in the most charming manner possible, shows the real value of these works, which I can assure you many good scholars have no idea of, as I observed when ‘Evelyn’s Diary’ was published. These, as the critic points out, have, for a great variety of readers, their own peculiar tastes and objects; this is the philosophy of Biography! Now, my good friend, if you go on under the new administration as well as you have begun, you may yet hope to keep up the sale and influence of the Quarterly, which was so long under an eclipse, by another of your Wooden Idols!”

Lockhart’s literary taste and discernment were of the highest order; and he displayed a moderation and gentleness, even in his adverse criticism, for which those who knew him but slightly, or by reputation only, scarce gave him credit. There soon sprang up between him and his publisher an intimacy and mutual confidence which lasted till Murray’s death; and Lockhart continued to edit the Quarterly till his own death in 1854. In truth there was need of mutual confidence between editor and publisher, for they were called upon to deal with not a few persons whose deep interest in the Quarterly tempted them at times to assume a somewhat dictatorial tone in their comments on and advice for the management of the Review. When an article written by Croker, on Lamennais’ ‘Paroles d’un Croyant,’* was under consideration, Lockhart wrote to the publisher:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

November 8th, 1826. My Dear Murray,

It is always agreeable and often useful for us to hear what you think of the articles in progress. Croker and I both differ from you as to the general affair, for this reason simply, that Lamennais is to Paris what Benson or Lonsdale is to London. His book has produced and is producing a very great effect. Even religious people there applaud him, and they are re-echoed here by old Jerdan, who pronounces that, be he right or wrong, he has produced “a noble sacred poem.” It is needful to caution the English against the course of France by showing up the audacious extent of her horrors, political, moral, and

* The article by J. W. Croker was afterwards published in No. 104 of the Quarterly.

religious; and you know what was the result of our article on those vile tragedies, the extracts of which were more likely to offend a family circle than anything in the ‘Paroles d’un Croyant;’ and which even I was afraid of. Mr. Croker, however, will modify and curtail the paper so as to get rid of your specific objections. It had already been judged advisable to put the last and only blasphemous extract in French in place of English. Depend upon it, if we were to lower our scale so as to run no risk of offending any good people’s delicate feelings, we should soon lower ourselves so as to rival ‘My Grandmother the British’ in want of interest to the world at large, and even (though they would not say so) to the saints themselves.— Verb. sap.

Among the many foreigners introduced to Mr. Murray was the Rev. Edmund D. Griffin, a young American clergyman of literary tastes, who visited England in 1827-28 for the benefit of his health, and called upon Mr. Murray in London, with a letter of introduction from a familiar friend of his, an old lady in Edinburgh. Finding him an agreeable and accomplished man, Murray invited him to join a select dinner party at 50, Albemarle Street. Mr. Griffin died soon after his return home, and his friends subsequently published his ‘Reminiscences,’ which include the following graphic description of Murray and his friends:—

“I dined, yesterday, with a very distinguished party, at Mr. Murray’s, consisting of Moore, Lockhart, Washington Irving, Smith, one of the authors of the ‘Rejected Addresses,’ and other beaux esprits; Mitchell, the translator of ‘Aristophanes;’ and some others, of less name and fame. The first is, certainly, a most unpoetical figure. Nor is his countenance, at first sight, more promising than his person. When you study it, however; when you consider the height of the bald crown, the loftiness of the receding pyramidal forehead; the marked, yet expanded and graceful lines of the mouth; above all, when you catch the bright smile and the brilliant eye-beam, which accompany the flashes of his wit and the sallies of his fancy; you forget, and are ready to disavow your former impressions. To Moore, Lockhart offers a strong and singular contrast. Tall, and slightly, but elegantly formed, his head possesses the noble contour, the precision and harmony of outline, which distinguish classic sculpture. It possesses, too, a striking effect of colour, in a complexion pale, yet pure, and hair black as the raven’s wing. Though his countenance is youthful (he seems scarce more than thirty), yet I should designate reflection as the prominent, combined expression of that broad, white forehead; those arched and pencilled brows: those retired, yet full, dark eyes; the accurately chiselled nose; and compressed, though curved lips. His face is too thin, perhaps, for mere beauty; but this defect heightens its intellectual character. Our distinguished countryman [Irving] is of about the ordinary height, and rather stout in person. His hair is black, and his complexion ‘sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.’ His eyes are of a pale colour: his profile approaches the Grecian, and is remarkably benevolent and contemplative. Mr. Smith carries a handsome, good-natured countenance; and Mr. Mitchell’s physiognomy, though not handsome, is, at least, amiable.

“The conversation at dinner consisted chiefly in the relation of anecdotes. To my great disappointment, no discussion of any length or interest took place. It must be admitted that the anecdotes were select, and told with infinite wit and spirit. Many of them, I doubt not, were the inventions of the narrators. Such seemed to be peculiarly the case with those of Mr. Moore and Mr. Smith; who, though seated at different ends of the table, frequently engaged each other, from time to time, in a sort of contest for superiority. This contest, however, was still carried on in the same way. Both tried only which could relate the most pungent witticism, or tell the most amusing story. The subjects of the anecdotes in general were extremely interesting. Lord Byron, and other eminent men, with whom the speakers had been familiar, were frequently brought upon the stage. Mr. Lockhart, meantime, though he seemed to enjoy the pleasantries of others, contributed none of his own. Whatever he did say, was in a Scottish accent, and exhibited strong sense and extensive reading. Mr. Irving seems to be one of those men who, like Addison, have plenty of gold in their pockets, but are almost destitute of ready change. His reserve, however, is of a strikingly different character from that of the editor of the Quarterly. The one appears the reserve of sensibility; the other that of thought. The taste of the one leads him apparently to examine the suggestions of his own mind with such an over scrupulosity, that he seldom gives them utterance. The reflection of the other is occupied in weighing the sentiments expressed, and separating the false from the true. Mr. Irving is mild and bland, even anxious to please. Mr. Lockhart is abstracted and cold, almost indifferent.

“On returning to the drawing-room, the scene was changed, though the great actors remained in part at least the same. Music was substituted for conversation, Mr. Smith gave an original song, full of humour and variety. Mr. Moore was induced to seat himself at the piano, and indulged his friends with two or three of his own Irish melodies. I cannot describe to you his singing; it is perfectly unique. The combination of music, and of poetic sentiment, emanating from one mind, and glowing in the very countenance, and speaking in the very voice which that same mind illuminates and directs, produces an effect upon the eye, the ear, the taste, the feeling, the whole man in short, such as no mere professional excellence can at all aspire to equal. His head is cast backward, and his eyes upward, with the true inspiration of an ancient bard. His voice, though of little compass, is inexpressibly sweet. He realized to me, in many respects, my conceptions of the poet of love and wine; the refined and elegant, though voluptuous Anacreon. . . . But the author of the ‘Fire Worshippers’ gave us, in the course of the evening, an Irish rebel’s song, which was absolutely thrilling. Anacreon was, however, afterwards restored to us in a drinking song, composed to be sung at a convivial meeting of an association of gentlemen.

“I cannot conclude this brief sketch, without saying a few words of my host. He is a good-looking man, with a preoccupied and anxious air. This gives way, however, to true Scottish sense and cordiality in conversation. He has a strong understanding, and a good memory; and is exceedingly interesting from the long intercourse which he has maintained with, and the intimate knowledge he possesses, of all the eminent literary characters of the age. The memoirs of himself and his times would be invaluable. He has been the Mæcenas of his day; and though not the favourite of an emperor, has conferred more substantial rewards on merit, than even the distinguished Roman. Such has been his liberality, that, though millions have passed through his hands, he is, I am told, by no means exorbitantly rich.”

Like most sagacious publishers, Murray was free from prejudice, and was ready to publish for all parties and for men of opposite opinions. For instance, he published Malthus’s ‘Essay on Population,’ and Sadler’s contradiction of the theory. He published Byron’s attack on Southey, and Southey’s two letters against Lord Byron. He published Nugent’s ‘Memorials of Hampden,’ and the Quarterly Review’s attack upon it. Southey’s ‘Book of the Church’ evoked a huge number of works on the Roman Catholic controversy, most of which were published by Mr. Murray. Mr. Charles Butler followed with his ‘Book on the Roman Catholic Church.’ And the Rev. Joseph Blanco White’s ‘Practical and Internal Evidence against Catholicism,’ with occasional strictures on Mr. Butler’s ‘Book on the Roman Catholic Church.’ Another answer to Mr. Butler came from Dr. George Townsend, in his ‘Accusations of History against the Church of Rome.’ Then followed the Divines, of whom there were many: the Rev. Dr. Henry Phillpotts (then of Stanhope Rectory, Durham, but afterwards Bishop of Exeter), in his ‘Letter to Charles Butler on the Theological Parts of his Book on the Roman Catholic Church;’ the Rev. G. S. Faber’s ‘Difficulties of Romanism;’ and many others.

Southey, when sending the first part of his MS. of ‘Vindiciæ Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ,’ for publication—comprising his ‘Essays on the Romish Religion,’ and vindicating his ‘Book of the Church’—wrote to Mr. Murray:—“Mr. Butler will not complain of any want of courtesy—though it is really like breaking a butterfly on a wheel to be engaged in combating such flimsy sophistries, and in exposing calumnies and misstatements which have been again and again confuted and held up to scorn.” Mr. Butler, however, thought differently. He wrote to Mr. Murray:—“I shall not answer any of my answerers, unless Southey should add himself to their number; and, as he has so long delayed his answer, I shall think twice before I answer him.” But when Southey’s ‘Vindiciæ Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ’ finally appeared, Mr. Butler answered his objections in a letter addressed to the Right Rev. C. J. Blomfield, then Bishop of Chester; and, afterwards, in his ‘Vindication of the Book of the Roman Catholic Church.’

Mr. Southey to John Murray. March 5th, 1825.

“I look upon myself as grand author of all the works which the ‘Book of the Church’ has produced. The wind which I have raised has been no ill one for you. . . . It is not often that you have published so prolific a book as the ‘Book of the Church,’ which is father to Mr. Butler’s volume, grandfather to all the rejoinders to it, great grandfather to the second volume; and the family tree is growing still.”

Mr. Butler subsequently published, through Mr. Murray, his ‘Life of Erasmus,’ and his ‘Reminiscences,’ a most interesting work. The way in which he accomplished so much was by never wasting a moment of time; and also, as he himself said to Murray, “in directing his attention to one literary subject at a time; to read the last work upon the subject, consulting others as little as possible; when the subjects were contentious, to read the best book on each side; to find out men of information, and when in their society, to listen, not to talk.” The way of Southey was different. He read and studied many sub-jects at a time. While he was busy with his controversy with Butler, he was also occupied with his ‘History of the Late War in Spain and Portugal,’ writing his ‘Sir Thomas More,’ or his ‘Colloquies on the Prospects and Progress of Society,’ finishing his poem of the ‘Tale of Paraguay,’ and writing articles on a variety of subjects for the Quarterly. When explaining to Murray that the reason for his want of copy was that he was proceeding with his poem, he added:—

Mr. Southey to John Murray.

“There may be some imprudence in my undertaking so many things at once; but there is this advantage, that I never pursue any subject with a flagging mind. If I do not see readily how to combine the materials advantageously, I lay the narrative aside, and take up something else; then to return to it in some happier mood; and thus it is that there is a life and freshness in my narrative. Nothing is done hastily, or crudely; nothing is constrained.”

Southey’s second volume of the ‘History of the Peninsular War’ appeared in April, 1826. His first volume was much objected to. Mr. Carrick Moore refers to his “base persecution of the memory of Sir John Moore,” adding that the Duke of Wellington had spoken most warmly and liberally to Colonel Napier (who was also writing an account of the Peninsular War) on the subject of these calumnies against Moore. Southey said of Napier, “his history will be the standard un-literary history of his campaigns—mine the philosophical, moral, and popular one, of the Peninsular War.” Southey was greatly deceived. His history is now comparatively unknown, while Napier’s is not only the standard military authority, but by far the best literary work on the subject.

Mr. Murray continued to publish many important works on voyages and travels. As he had published the first and second, so he published the third voyage of Captain Parry to the Polar Regions. These works excited great interest at the time of their appearance.

Captain Parry, R.N., to John Murray.

“It is very gratifying to my feelings, to be assured that my task is so well spoken of by those whose judgment is the most to be valued on such subjects. Too much is, in these book-making days, expected of naval officers in this respect; for they are accustomed to act more than to write—but both are expected from us now.”

While voyages to the Arctic Regions, amidst ice and floes, were read with interest, travels under the burning sun of Africa, were equally popular. The ‘Travels and Discoveries in Northern and Central Africa,’ by Denham, Clapperton, and Oudney, were brought out in a magnificent volume, splendidly illustrated. Major Denham looked closely after his personal interests, and required £1500 for the copyright of his work. Mr. Murray said, in answer to his proposal, “This is more than ever was given for any volume of voyages or travels, and it is not in my character to be illiberal in my proposals when I see my way. Unwilling, however, not to show a disposition to do something when you have been so complimentary, I will venture to offer you £1200 for the copyright of your travels, drawings,” &c. Major Denham accepted the offer, “with the exception of the French edition,” but as Mr. Murray was at the expense of the illustrations, and subsequently paid the author £200 for a second edition, the sum paid for the work actually exceeded the amount originally demanded. Captain Hugh Clapperton afterwards published through Mr. Murray, his ‘Journal of a Second Expedition into the Interior of Africa.’

Mr. Murray was proud of his voyagers and travellers. He had their portraits painted by Jackson, and added to the Murray gallery in Albemarle Street. “I took the liberty,” wrote Parry to Murray, “of taking my friend Mr. Stanley, the brother of Sir John, to see your Polar and other portraits in your dining-room the other day. He is quite an enthusiast in enterprise, and was much gratified by your collection.”

While most authors are ready to take “cash down” for their manuscripts, there are others who desire to be remunerated in proportion to the sale of their works. This is especially the case with works of history or biography, which are likely to have a permanent circulation. Hence when the judicious Mr. Hallam—who had sold the first three editions of ‘Europe during the Middle Ages’ to Mr. Murray for £1400—had completed his ‘Constitutional History of England,’ he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mr. Hallam to John Murray.

Wimpole Street, June 13th, 1825. Dear Sir,

You are well acquainted with the nature of a literary undertaking which has occupied my time for several years, and which I am now prepared to submit to the public eye. To describe it however more particularly, it will contain the Constitutional History of England from the accession of Henry VII. to the death of George II., and will bear this or some equivalent title. I consider it in a great degree as a continuation of the eighth chapter of the ‘View of the Middle Ages,’ in which the progress of the English government was deduced, to the reign of Henry VII., at which the present work begins.

The length, as far as I am able to judge, will be very nearly the same as that of the former; namely, two volumes in quarto, containing from 1100 to 1200 pages. The octavo editions I rather conceive should be in four volumes, and consequently each rather smaller than those of the corresponding editions of the ‘Middle Ages.’ I should wish to put the first part of the copy into the printer’s hands about the 15th of September, and, if he can undertake to furnish me with five sheets a week, it will be easily practicable to publish the work in the next season.

I have every reason to be satisfied with your fairness and liberality on the former occasions, when I was comparatively a stranger to the world of letters, and the success of so extensive a work as the ‘View of the Middle Ages’ was very precarious. But as I have a right to calculate at present on a speedy sale, I think it reasonable to ask a larger proportion of the profits than before, and conceive that a sum equivalent to two-thirds of the net receipts, will be no more than a just price. I should propose on these terms to print 750 copies in quarto, so as to enable the purchasers of the first edition of the ‘Middle Ages’ to complete their set in the same form, and to proceed as nearly as possible at the same time with an edition in octavo, so that there may be no great interval in the publication.

It does not occur to me that I have omitted anything very important; but if so it will be easy for us to come to an explanation.

Believe me, my dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, Henry Hallam .

Mr. Murray immediately complied with Mr. Hallam’s request, and he agreed to print and publish at his own cost and risk the ‘Constitutional History of England,’ and pay to the author two-thirds of the net profits (not “receipts” as stated by Mr. Hallam) arising from the sale of the same. And these were the terms on which Mr. Murray published all Mr. Hallam’s subsequent works.

Mr. Murray still continued to publish poems. Gabriele Rossetti—a refugee from Italy, but then Professor of the Italian language in King’s College, London—published through Mr. Murray his ‘Divina Commedia’ of Dante, with Analytical Comments. Mr. Murray also published Mr. T. M. Musgrave’s translation of Camoen’s ‘Lusiad,’ and Mr. William Sotheby’s translation of Wieland’s ‘Oberon.’ While the fourth volume of Mr. W. Stewart Rose’s translation of ‘Orlando Furioso,’ which has already been mentioned, was at the printers, Mr. Rose wrote to Mr. Murray:

Mr. W. S. Rose to John Murray. Polygon, Southampton, Jan. 6th, 1826.

“It would require the power of Satan to keep so many devils as you drive, in order; and I only wonder that you manage them so well. I wish, however, that you would also put a light to the furioso-devil who does not justify his name. Why does this devil hang fire? I would be content if he would but keep smouldering.”

While Mr. Rose was busy with his translation, the sea broke in upon his Italian villa, Gundimore, situated on a peninsula on the shore of Hampshire, and cost him about £300 to repair the premises and restore the ramparts. He could ill afford this at the time, but he endeavoured to earn the money by his pen.

Mr. W. S. Rose to John Murray.

“I am too proud to beg or borrow: but would willingly work for the money, and with this purpose (on receiving the bad news) sat down to the composition of what, I thought, might be a popular piece of nonsense, and of which I once spoke to you, between jest and earnest. The intended volume is to be a duodecimo or small octavo, much in the manner of some of Southey’s animal stories in his ‘Omniana,’ to be entitled ‘Apology: Anecdotes of Monkeys,’ or what the bookseller best likes; always premising that my name is not to appear on the title-page. . . . My monkeys will not be at all in the way of my knights-errant, as I shall take my ape-ology and the Furioso, like bread and cheese.”

Among the original poems published by Mr. Murray about this time, were Alaric A. Watts’ ‘Lyrics of the Heart,’ Mrs. Hemans’s ‘Forest Sanctuary,’ and Mr. Milman’s ‘Anne Boleyn.’ It was with considerable difficulty that Mr. Murray could be persuaded to publish the two last-mentioned poems. Mrs. Hemans’s Muse had not proved so attractive as formerly, and Mr. Milman’s poems had lain upon the bookshelves. The ‘Forest Sanctuary’ was sent back to the author, to be improved and condensed; and after Mrs. Hemans had made “considerable retrenchment” it was given to the world. Mr. Milman’s poem was sent to Mr. Lockhart for perusal in manuscript; and his judgment was as follows:

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

“I think Milman’s Poem contains about half-a-dozen passages of stately and noble versification, but it is, as a dramatic work, feeble and poor in the extreme. However, the subject is very good, and I daresay the book may be popular for the moment. It is quite clear that he never ought to have been a Poet, for he becomes every day more artificial, and that is a sad symptom at his time of life. He has fine talents, but no genius; and if he would learn to write prose as well as he does write verse, he might make a figure worth speaking of.”

“Anne Boleyn” was published, but attained no success. Mr. Milman, however, acted upon Lockhart’s hint, and betook himself to prose, in which department he eventually acquired his most lasting reputation.

In 1826 Thomas Hood—wit, poet, and novelist—armed with an introduction from Mr. Barron Field—offered Mr. Murray his book of ‘Whims and Oddities,’ illustrated by forty woodcuts. Hood had already published, in conjunction with his brother-in-law, Reynolds, ‘The Odes and Addresses to Great People’; but beyond this he was scarcely known. “You want a light book,” said Mr. Field to Murray, “to relieve all your Voyages and Histories; and I think this will just suit you, and that you will find Mr. Hood a very pleasant acquaintance.” But Mr. Murray had more publications on hand at the time than he could well manage, and he consequently declined Mr. Hood’s work, which was published elsewhere.

Mr. Wordsworth desiring to republish his Poems, made application with that object to Mr. Murray, who thereupon consulted Lockhart.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. July 9th, 1826.

“In regard to Wordsworth I certainly cannot doubt that it must be creditable to any publisher to publish the works of one who is and must continue to be a classic Poet of England. Your adventure with Crabbe, however, ought to be a lesson of much caution. On the other hand, again, W.’s poems must become more popular, else why so many editions in the course of the last few years. There have been two of the ‘Excursion’ alone, and I know that these have not satisfied the public. Everything, I should humbly say, depends on the terms proposed by the great Laker, whose vanity, be it whispered, is nearly as remarkable as his genius.”

The following is the letter in which Mr. Wordsworth made this formal proposal to Mr. Murray to publish his collected poems:

Mr. Wordsworth to John Murray.

Rydal Mount, near Ambleside, December 4th, 1826. Dear Sir,

I have at last determined to go to the Press with my Poems as early as possible. Twelve months ago they were to have been put into the hands of Messrs. Robinson and Hurst, upon the terms of payment of a certain sum, independent of expense on my part; but the failure of that house prevented the thing going forward. Before I offer the publication to any one but yourself, upon the different principle agreed on between you and me, as you may recollect, viz.: the author to meet two-thirds of the expenses and risk, and to share two-thirds of the profit, I think it proper to renew that proposal to you. If you are not inclined to accept it, I shall infer so from your silence; if such an arrangement suits you, pray let me immediately know; and all I have to request is, that without loss of time, when I have informed you of the intended quantity of letter-press, you will then let me know what my share of the expense will amount to.

I am, dear Sir, Your obedient servant, Wm. Wordsworth .

As Mr. Murray did not answer this letter promptly, Mr. H. Crabb Robinson called upon him to receive his decision, and subsequently wrote:

Mr. H. C. Robinson to John Murray. Feb. 1827.

“I wrote to Mr. Wordsworth the day after I had the pleasure of seeing you. I am sorry to say that my letter came too late. Mr. Wordsworth interpreted your silence into a rejection of his offer; and his works will unfortunately lose the benefit of appearing under your auspices. They have been under the press some weeks.”

About the beginning of 1825, Messrs. Constable, of Edinburgh, started the idea of publishing works for the million. Their first project was a plan for bringing out an ‘Encyclopædia for Youth;’ but this idea was discarded, or at least altered, and eventually developed itself in the publication of ‘Constable’s Miscellany.’ Already before this Murray, entertaining the idea of a cheap and popular series of Voyages and Travels, had actually set in type a pocket edition of Parry’s and Franklin’s ‘Voyages.’ Although these works did not appear until after ‘Constable’s Miscellany,’ Murray had given a specimen copy to Basil Hall, who showed it to Constable. Financial difficulties were now overwhelming the firm, and Mr. Archibald Constable, the head and founder of it, went to London to arrange money matters with the London agents, and, after a long interval of about fifteen years, during which they had no business transactions whatever, Murray and Constable renewed their friendship. In October 1825 Mr. Constable was paying a visit at Wimbledon, when Mr. Murray addressed his host—Mr. Wright, whose name has already occurred in the Representative correspondence—as follows:

John Murray to Mr. Wright.

October, 1825. My Dear Wright,

Although I intend to do myself the pleasure of calling upon Mr. Constable at your house to-morrow immediately after church (for it is our charity sermon at Wimbledon, and I must attend), yet I should be most happy, if it were agreeable to you and to him, to favour us with your company at dinner at, I will say, five to-morrow. Mr. Constable is godfather to my son, who will be at home, and I am anxious to introduce him to Mr. C., who may not be long in town.

Mr. Constable and his friend accordingly dined with Murray, and that the meeting was very pleasant may be inferred from Mr. Constable’s letter of a few days later, in which he wrote to Murray, “It made my heart glad to be once more happy together as we were the other evening.” The rest of Mr. Constable’s letter referred to Hume’s Philosophical Writings, which were tendered to Murray, but which he declined to publish.

“I know,” said Mr. Constable, “your rejection of the work will be a source of mortification to its proprietor. I cannot, however, offer any advice to you on such an occasion; only, before showing the Book elsewhere, I cannot avoid saying that your accepting it would have obliged more than one friend.”

Mr. Constable’s visit to London did not stave off the pecuniary difficulties by which he was beset; for little more than a month after the above meeting the crash came. So soon, however, as Constable could arrange matters with his creditors, he pursued his scheme of the ‘Miscellany.’ The first number appeared on the 6th of January, 1827, about a year after his failure, and consisted of the first part of Capt. Basil Hall’s ‘Voyage to Loo-Choo,’ which had originally been published by Mr. Murray. In July 1826, six months before the first number of Constable’s ‘Miscellany’ was published, Capt. Hall wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:

Captain Hall to John Murray.

July 1826. My Dear Sir,

Upon considering the matter over, which you spoke to me of the other day, and more attentively, I do not think, all things considered, that I can without indelicacy write to Edinburgh on the subject of the ‘Miscellany,’ still less about the other works. You will observe I am almost in total darkness as to the actual state of affairs, and without some plea or other, my writing, I think, would not have that business-like air which you would wish it to have, and without which it would have no effect. It has occurred to me, however, that you have a perfectly fair and obvious plea for writing to me. ‘Loo-Choo’ was first published by you, also the second edition; and my friends in the trade in Edinburgh have often heard me say how handsomely you had behaved upon the occasion of that publication, and with what particular courtesy and liberality of spirit you had at once relinquished all claim to the work when it was proposed to incorporate it in another publica-tion belonging to a rival publisher. All this being the case it does appear to me quite natural that, upon the ruin of that project, you should apply to me on the subject of your former bantling ‘Loo-Choo,’ now that he has grown, if not in stature, at least in years, and I hope in taste and understanding. If you address me such a letter I shall of course then have some materials to work upon, and I shall, with the greatest pleasure back your wishes with all the weight which your legal possession of the copyright gives me.

Mr. Murray, however, had no wish to interfere with Mr. Constable’s project, and now that the Edinburgh publisher was in difficulties, he desired to see him well out of them, believing that the success of the ‘Miscellany’ would probably revive the fortunes of the firm. He therefore did not write the proposed letter, but desired Capt. Hall to continue his engagement with Constable. In the next letter addressed to Mr. Murray, Capt. Hall wrote:

Captain Hall to John Murray. August 15th, 1826.

“Mr. Constable proposes to carry on the ‘Miscellany’ by-and-by, when he is disentangled from the affairs of the sequestrated estate. Possibly, also, he will go on with the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ but at present nothing is certain; and I regret to add that our worthy friend’s health has not been improved by these severe trials of fortune. . . . I saw the Great Unknown several times; he is altogether unshaken by these catastrophes. The gale has made him close-reef his sails, and send his top-gallant masts on deck; but his hull is without a leak and his rigging entire. Any ordinary man would have been dismantled and driven on the coast, whereas he keeps the sea like a Nelson.”

Mr. Constable, though in failing health, still persevered in his arrangements for the early publication of his ‘Miscellany,’ and his endeavours to secure new and popular works for the succeeding numbers, are proved by the following letter addressed to Mr. Murray only a week before the publication of the first number of the ‘Miscellany.’

Mr. Constable to John Murray.

December 29th, 1826.

Between old friends like you and myself it would be needless, at least I feel it so, in a communication like the present, to go back on the recent events, in which you know I have had a deep and an unfortunate interest, and of which I little dreamt when we last met. I shall therefore enter at once into the chief business of this letter, which, in the first place, is to tell you that, after many months of very poor health, I am again, though leaving a sick-bed, about to embark in some of the world’s cares; but I shall do so with greatly abridged anxieties, I trust, compared to those in which it was my lot to be so long involved. I hope your health, my dear sir, has stood its ground. Without that blessing, there are but few of us who could boast of much happiness in this world of change and uncertainty.

I believe you thought well of my ‘Miscellany.’ I am just about to enter on a new career, making it for the present my sole and only object. The times, I am aware are wonderfully changed since my undertaking was first announced; and I am looking forward to nothing but moderate doings, and these I think I can say are likely to be realized. I have made considerable changes in the list of publications, as you will see if you have leisure to glance over the copy of it enclosed. I take the liberty of sending you our friend Captain Hall’s Voyages, which from his uncommon kindness still holds the first place in my undertaking.

I heard some time ago with astonishment (and it is not everything nowadays, that does so) that a proposition had been made to you to purchase your literary property. Ambition and folly often go together; and perhaps in the present instance you will say so of myself, though the scale be a small one. I ask whether, as a great favour, you will grant me the right of printing Southey’s ‘Life of Nelson’ in the ‘Miscellany’? In making this proposition, I know I am doing it to a friend of most liberal feelings, and, whether the favour is granted me or not, you will not take any offence at the question being put, which is done entirely under the impression that in a matter of merchandize, in which only the present application can be treated, there is no offence intended, or likely to be taken. It is entirely impossible for me to estimate the value of what I am now wishing to treat about. The sale of Mr. Southey’s work, taken by itself, could not fail to be great, and the effect upon my publication would be considerable. I shall therefore be prepared to meet you in regard to terms, whatever they may be; on the understanding that it is for the ‘Miscellany’ alone, and in no other shape that it will be used. This is the only favour of the kind which I have asked for my work, and you will excuse my adding that you are the only individual in the trade from whom I would ask it; or, to say a little more, anything else.

Mr. Murray could not comply with the request of his old friend and correspondent, for this reason, amongst others, that he had for many months been in correspondence with Mr. Charles Knight and the Rev. Edward Edwards as to the publication of a series of volumes, under the title of the ‘National Library,’ in which it was proposed to include a revised edition of Southey’s ‘Life of Nelson.’ The prospectus had been prepared by Mr. Knight, but the scheme was not proceeded with at that time. Mr. Murray afterwards developed it, and republished ‘Nelson’s Life’ in ‘The Family Library.’

Only six months had passed since the issuing of the first number of the ‘Miscellany,’ when Mr. Constable, then far gone in dropsy, died suddenly, July 21st, 1827.

John Ballantyne, Scott’s partner, had died a few years before. Scott wrote in his Diary: “It is written that nothing shall flourish under my shadow: The Ballantynes, Terry, Nelson, Weber, all came to distress. Nature has written on my brow, Your shade shall be broad, but there shall be no protection derived from it to aught you favour.”

CHAPTER XXVIII. HEAD—DISRAELI—LOCKHART—WASHINGTON IRVING—SCOTT, DOWN TO HIS DEATH.

Allusion has been made in a previous chapter to the sudden access of speculation which occurred in connection with South America in 1824-5. Amongst other districts to which attention was especially drawn were the Cordilleras of the Andes, which were regarded as the fabled El Dorado, where gold, silver, and diamonds, might be found in immense quantities, without much difficulty or trouble.

Amongst those who were sent out to develop these resources was Captain Francis Head, of the Royal Engineers, who was entrusted with the superintendence of the gold and silver mines at the Rio de la Plata.

Captain Head, accompanied by a surveyor, an assayer, and seven miners from Cornwall, set out for Buenos Ayres in 1825, to undertake this duty. The party proceeded to the gold mines of San Luis, and thence to the silver mines of Uspallata, about 1000 miles from Buenos Ayres. Leaving them there, Head returned on horseback across the Pampas, performing the distance in eight days. The letters he then received rendered it necessary that he should go immediately to Chili, and he again crossed the Pampas, catching and lassoing wild horses wherever he could to pursue his journey. He afterwards joined his party, and with them he crossed the Andes to Santiago, and proceeded with them in different directions for about 1200 miles to inspect gold and silver mines. On completing his inspection, Captain Head again crossed the Pampas to Buenos Ayres; having ridden during his journeys more than 6000 miles; sleeping at night on the ground, and living mainly on dried beef and water. He rode at the rate of about a hundred and twenty miles a day. As a conscientious agent of those by whom he was sent out he was compelled to render an unfavourable report of the mines, but having performed this duty he took pen in hand, and dashed off, almost at a heat, a narrative of his Rapid Journeys across the Pampas and among the Andes. After finishing it, he handed the MS. to Mr. Murray, who sent him a draft for a hundred guineas. It was far more than Captain Head had expected; and, in answering Murray’s communication, he said, “I consider your note a very gratifying instance of your honourable and liberal character.”

It was his first book, and, rapid though the narrative was, it was perhaps his best. It had all the interest of a novel, and was read with great avidity. Southey, in reviewing it, said, “His are mere sketches, it is true, but the outline is so well and clearly defined as to produce all the effect of a finished picture.”

Shortly after the appearance of this book, Captain Head published his reports relating to the failure of the Rio Plata Mining Association. A meeting of the company was held to consider the report, after which Captain Head wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Captain Head to John Murray.

“You will have seen in the Times the account of the Rio Plata meeting. A committee of shareholders is to determine what measures are now to be taken, as if there was anything now to be done but to bury the bones of the Hobby, and to forget that he ever possessed such flesh and blood. One of the persons named for the committee was the individual who had been paid by the Directors for prosecuting me. However, it is only proper and consistent that the Speculation should end as it began—in Humbug.”

From this time, Captain Head continued to be one of Mr. Murray’s greatest friends and admirers, as we shall afterwards find from his letters. He wrote articles for the Quarterly, and all his best works, including the famous ‘Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau,’ were published in Albemarle Street.

We have already alluded to Mr. Benjamin Disraeli’s connection with the firm of Messrs. Powles, the City brokers, one member of which had signed the agreement for a fourth share in the Representative, but had not come forward to bear his share of the losses. Mr. Powles was only too glad to avail himself of Disraeli’s literary skill to recommend his mining speculations to the public. In March 1825, Mr. Murray published, on commission, ‘American Mining Companies,’ and the same year ‘Present State of Mexico,’ and ‘Lawyers and Legislators,’ all of them written by, or under the superintendence of, Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Powles, however, again proved faithless, and although the money for the printing had been due for some time, he paid nothing; and at length Mr. Disraeli addressed Mr. Murray in the following letter:—

Mr. Benjamin Disraeli to John Murray.

6 Bloomsbury Square, March 19th, 1827. Sir,

I beg to enclose you the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, which I believe to be the amount due to you for certain pamphlets published respecting the American Mining Companies, as stated in accounts sent in some time since. I have never been able to obtain a settlement of these accounts from the parties originally responsible, and it has hitherto been quite out of my power to exempt myself from the liability, which, I have ever been conscious, on their incompetency, resulted from the peculiar circumstances of the case to myself. In now enclosing you what I consider to be the amount, I beg also to state that I have fixed upon it from memory, having been unsuccessful in my endeavours to obtain even a return of the accounts from the original parties, and being unwilling to trouble you again for a second set of accounts, which had been so long and so improperly kept unsettled. In the event, therefore, of there being any mistake, I will be obliged by your clerk instantly informing me of it, and it will be as instantly rectified; and I will also thank you to enclose me a receipt, in order to substantiate my claims and enforce my demands against the parties originally responsible. I have to express my sense of your courtesy in this business, and

I am, sir, yours truly, Benjamin Disraeli .

Mr. Murray had been so successful in publishing the early works of Washington Irving, that he was disposed to comply with a proposal to undertake a new book from the same hand. This was, however, of a very different character from those heretofore published, which had merely been descriptions. Irving’s proposed new work was ‘The Life and Voyages of Columbus.’ In November 1823, Irving wrote to Murray from Paris, saying that he had been rambling about Germany for upwards of a year, and that having settled down in Paris, he was now ready for some kind of literary work. He proposed to write ‘The Arabian Tales,’ but the tales were never written, and his mind took another direction. Irving’s literary work up to this time had consisted chiefly of a series of short, lively, and eloquent essays and sketches, but in the following year he wrote to Murray from Madrid:—

Mr. W. Irving to John Murray. December 21st, 1826.

“I have a work nearly ready for the press, ‘The Life and Voyages of Columbus.’ It will make a couple of volumes quarto; and I will either sell the copyright, or you may print an edition, and we will share the profits.”

It was long, however, before Irving could complete the work; chiefly, he said, because of not being able to consult the MS. history of ‘Las Casas’; but that having at length obtained access to it, he had introduced many alterations and additions.

Washington Irving was at the same time proceeding with the ‘Conquest of Granada,’ and as he was travelling about Spain, from one place to another, and enjoying the natural beauties and historic associations of the country, it was long before he could complete either work. In August 1827, however, he was able to send the main body of his MSS. of ‘Columbus’ to his friend Colonel Aspinwall, the American Consul in London, who thenceforward became Irving’s agent for the sale of his copyrights. Newton, the artist, described him as a “sharp bargainer,” as he no doubt proved to be. What Murray’s first proposal was, we do not know; but from a letter of Lockhart to him (December 1827), we find that “Mr. Leslie, the artist, offered W. Irving’s ‘Columbus’ to Colburn for £1500; and that he thought it right to inform him of this proposal.”

Mr. Southey, whose opinion of the merits of the work had been asked, expressed it as follows:—

Mr. R. Southey to John Murray. September 8th, 1827.

“I return the MS. of Columbus’ Life by this day’s coach. It appears to me to have been compiled with great industry and to be well conceived, presenting a most remarkable portion of history in a popular form, and therefore likely to succeed; not for the ability displayed in it, but because the book is interesting and useful. There is neither much power of mind nor much knowledge indicated in it, but a great deal of diligence employed upon the subject which the author has undertaken.”

While the negotiations were in progress, Mr. Murray’s friend, Sharon Turner, sent him the following word of caution as to Irving’s ‘Columbus’:—

Mr. Sharon Turner to Mr. Murray.

December 1827. Dear Murray,

“Will you pardon a well-meant line? Have you finally concluded about the ‘Columbus’? If not, will you excuse me if, from the extract I see in the Literary Gazette, I am induced to ask, What has it of that superb degree as to make it fully safe for you to give the price you intend for it? I see no novelty of fact, and, though much ability, yet not that overwhelming talent which will give a very great circulation to so trite a subject. I merely take the liberty of suggesting a caution, which I do with great diffidence; for I know you have such an admirable tact of judgment about works and their probable success, that there is no one on whose prospective opinion I should rely more confidently than on yours. Yet the sum compared with the subject, and with the small part that I have seen of the execution makes me send you these hints, as a mere question for your consideration. . . . Could you make part of the price depend upon the editions or the number sold?”

The result proved that Turner was right, and that Murray, who agreed with Colonel Aspinwall to give 3000 guineas for the work, was wrong. The ‘Voyages of Columbus’ were published in February 1828, in four large octavo volumes.

Having thus concluded a very satisfactory arrangement as to the ‘Voyages of Columbus,’ Washington Irving next proceeded with the ‘Conquest of Granada,’ and, at the same time, with the ’Voyages of the Companions of Columbus.’ When the former work was finished, he sent the MS. to Colonel Aspinwall to bargain with the London publishers. When he thought Murray did not offer enough, he went to Bentley or Colburn and tried to get more. Murray, not liking to see the works of his famous author go into the hands of other publishers, offered a large sum for the ‘Conquest of Granada’—not less than 2000 guineas, although it, as well as the ‘Columbus,’ had been published in America before they appeared in England, and were therefore devoid of all legal protection.

Murray consulted Lockhart as to these works and received the following reply:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

“I have read this MS. with my best attention, and would fain read the sequel ere I gave a decided opinion. My impression is that, with much elegance, there is mixed a good deal of affectation—I must add, of feebleness. He is not the man to paint tumultuous war, in the lifetime of Scott, when Byron is fresh. Southey’s ‘Cid’ is worth ten of this in every way. How did that succeed? Surely the Laureate’s name is at least equal to Irving’s, and what name equal to the ‘Cid’s’ can be found in the ‘Wars of Granada?’ This, however, will be the only complete intelligible history of the downfall of the last Moorish power in Europe; and therefore a valuable, and, I doubt not, a standard work. I don’t as yet see that, for all this it can be worth 2000 guineas.”

Croker did not admire Irving so much as Lockhart. He wrote to Murray:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

January 18th, 1825.

Thank you, for the third time, for the prints, which, however well done, lose half their merit with me; for I never could read the ‘Sketch Book,’ nor, what d’ye call it? ‘Knickerbocker.’ Mr. Irving has a charming English style, formed by a careful and affectionate study of Addison, perhaps a little too much sweetened; and so polished that, although the surface is proportionably bright, it is nothing but surface. I can no more go on all day with one of his books than I could go on all day sucking a sugar-plum. The ‘American Dutchmen’ I do not understand at all; an historical account of such people might be entertaining, but, without any means of distinguishing how much is fiction and how much truth, these stories puzzle and tire me. How should you like to see Jan Steen’s figures introduced in Daniell’s Judean landscapes? “Si vrai, ce n’est pas toujours vraisemblable.” I am so ignorant as not to know how much is vrai, and so stupid as to think none of it vraisemblable.

Yours, J. W. Croker .

The writings of Irving had begun to pall upon the public taste, and neither of the works—‘Columbus’ or ‘Conquest’—The successful, although they were well reviewed. Murray communicated the facts to the author, then at Granada:

Mr. Irving to John Murray. May 9th, 1829.

“I have been annoyed by your forebodings of ill success to this work (‘Conquest of Granada’). When you have the spirit to give a large price for a work, why have you not the spirit to go manfully through with it, until the public voice determines its fate. These croakings get to my ears, and dishearten and interrupt me for a time with other things which I may have in hand. Remember, you doubted the success and declined the publication of the ‘Sketch Book,’ when I offered you the materials for the first volume, which had been already published in America, and it was only after it had been published in London by another bookseller, and had been well received, that you ventured to take it in hand. Remember too, that you lost heart about the success of ‘Columbus,’ and dropt a th[ousand] copies of the first edition after you had printed the first volume, and yet you see it continues to do well. I trust that you will be equally disappointed in your prognostications about the success of the ‘Conquest of Granada,’ and that it will not prove disadvantageous either to your purse or my reputation. At any rate, I should like hereafter to make our arrangements in such manner that you may be relieved from these apprehensions of loss in the publication of a work of mine.”

So great, however, was Murray’s personal regard for Washington Irving, and so high was his opinion of the merits of his writings, that he continued to purchase and publish his works though it involved him in considerable loss. On the other hand, Irving was not easily persuaded that the market value of his wares had in any measure decreased, and was by no means inclined to abate his demands. In answer to Irving’s inquiry from Birmingham, where he was then living with his brother-in-law, Henry Ward, Murray wrote:—

John Murray to Mr. Irving.

October 25th, 1831. My dear Sir,

My reply was, “Yes, I’ll write to you;” and the cause of my not having done so earlier, is one for which I am sure you will make allowances. You told me, upon our former negotiations, and you repeated it recently, that you would not suffer me to be a loser by any of your Works; and the state of matters in this respect I am exceedingly unwilling, because it is contrary to my nature, to submit to you; and in doing so at length, you will, I am sure, do me the justice to believe that I have no other expectations than those which are founded upon your own good feelings. The publication of ‘Columbus’ cost me, paper, printing, advertising, and author, £5700; and it has produced but £4700. ‘Granada’ cost £3073, and its sale has produced but £1830; making my gross loss £2250. I have thought it better to communicate with yourself direct than through the medium of Mr. Aspinwall. Let me have time to read the two new MSS., and then we shall not differ, I think, about terms.

I am, my dear Sir, faithfully yours, John Murray .

The work on which Washington Irving was then engaged consisted of the ‘Tales of the Alhambra.’ In a letter to his nephew (Feb. 6th, 1832), he wrote:—

“I have as yet made no bargain with any bookseller here, nor shall I until my manuscript is altogether complete. Indeed, the book trade is in such a deplorable state that I hardly know where to turn to; some are disabled, and all disheartened. There is scarce any demand for new works, such is the distraction of the public mind with reform, cholera, and Continental revolutions.”

Irving was more successful in selling his books to the publishers than the publishers were in selling them to the public. He once said:—

“Many and many a time have I regretted that at my early outset in life I had not been imperiously bound down to some regular and useful mode of life, and been thoroughly inured to habits of business; and I have a thousand times regretted with bitterness that I was ever led away by my imagination. Believe me, the man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow eats often a sweeter morsel, however coarse, than he who procures it by the labour of his brains.”

Irving continued to inveigh against literature as a profession, and still to write for several years, always endeavouring to obtain as high a price as possible for his works. Some of them were published by Bentley, and one or two—including the ‘Recollections of Abbotsford and Newstead,’ which was accepted on the strong recommendation of Mr. Lockhart—by Mr. Murray.

For many years no attempt was made to bring out pirated editions of these works in England, till at length, in 1843, Mr. Bohn announced a complete edition of the works of Washington Irving, when it became necessary to proceed by action at law, and endeavour to protect the property in these supposed copyrights. The result is found in the following clear and explicit letter of Mr. John Murray, who succeeded his father in 1843:—

John Murray, junior, to Mr. Irving.

My dear Sir,

Having troubled you so often, and I fear seriously, on the subject of my lawsuit with Bohn, it is with peculiar satisfaction that I now write to tell you that it is at an end. Mr. Bohn has offered me terms which are satisfactory to me and not humiliating to him. He has destroyed for me all value in your works, and I make over to him the copyrights. I regret to part with them, but it seemed to me the only way to get out of the squabble, which was becoming very serious, my law expenses alone having run up to £850. One good, at least, has been elicited out of this contest—it has settled the right of foreigners to hold copyright in this country; for I am assured by my counsel, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, one of the soundest heads at our bar, that the recent decision of our judges on that head is not likely to be reversed by the House of Lords, or any other tribunal. Sir Fitzroy Kelly has studied the subject minutely, and made an admirable speech in the Queen’s Bench, on my side. I hope, therefore, that the ‘Life of Washington,’ and other works to come from your pen, may yet bring advantage to their author from this country; but priority of publication in England is an indispensable condition, and must in all cases be guaranteed and carefully attested at the time of appearance. No one can desire more than I do an international copyright arrangement with the Americans. In my desire, I am not surpassed by Mr. Bohn, nor Sir E. L. Bulwer; but I differ from them in the strong conviction which I feel, that it is not by pirating the American books that the object is to be attained.

I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, John Murray .

Lockhart was by this time fully installed as editor of the Quarterly. While new to his position, he was always desirous of having the opinions of others as to his work. “You should tell me,” he wrote to Murray, on “all occasions what you feel and what you hear about the Review. It is only so that I can hope to be guided with advantage; for people will speak to you more candidly than to me.”

Mr. J. T. Coleridge, the late editor, had offered to review Hallam’s ‘Constitutional History of England,’ but the work was handed over to Robert Southey; and on the Quarterly reaching Mr. Hallam at Rome, he sent an angry message to Mr. Murray, protesting against the pique of Southey, and the hostility of the editor in admitting such a review; and intimating that his transactions with the publisher must come to an end. His impression was that the publisher was influenced by his deference to Tory opinions.

To this remonstrance Mr. Murray sent the following reply:—

John Murray to Mr. Hallam. June 27th, 1828

“If I were so foolish as to admit of such influence in the regulation of my business, its operation must inevitably be in the selection of what I should publish, and not in disparaging of what I had incurred both risk and expense in printing. No! I feel it a duty to publish, with equal integrity, for Croker and Leigh Hunt, Scott and Moore, Southey and Butler, Hobhouse and Gifford, Napier and Strangford. I have received many personal civilities, and I own obligations to the Whigs, but the Tories! I paid to the utmost their under-secretaries of state, secretaries of state, bishops, and even two prime ministers, for advocating their own cause. They took my money, but never did they confer the slightest favour in return either upon Gifford or myself. So much for my Tory relations; and, with regard to the article upon your ‘History’ in the Quarterly, I trust that you have been convinced of the absolute injustice of allowing it to make the smallest difference in those personal relations with myself, by which I have been so long gratified and honoured.”

Mr. Murray continued that, if Mr. Southey’s article had been rejected, it would have been published elsewhere, and perhaps in a more objectionable form.

“To have such statements published would have ruined my character by insinuating that I would not suffer any works published by myself to be fairly reviewed. You cannot think me fool enough to allow any party feeling to risk such a charge. I do not mean to offer the slightest apology for the appearance of the article, because I am conscious that I have nothing personally to do with it; but, as I feel an interest in anything that concerns you, so I express my regret at any annoyance which may have been associated with my name.”

Mr. Hallam did not, however, allow his resentment to endure long, and this incident made no difference whatever in his friendship with Mr. Murray. Their next correspondence, after many interviews, was with respect to the appearance of the ‘History of Literature,’ which was published by Mr. Murray on the same terms as its predecessors.

Mr. Thomas Mitchell being, about this time, on a visit to Southey in the Lake country, communicated to Murray that Southey “complained of Lockhart’s personal neglect of him.” And yet Lockhart had one, if not two, papers in each number of the Quarterly by Southey, who received £100 for each of them, and this was the Laureate’s principal source of income.

Mr. Southey to John Murray. August 13th, 1827.

“I was not aware that I had overdrawn my account; you have acted generously by me, and I have met with so little of such treatment in my dealings with the world, that I am the more gratified by having now, for once, to acknowledge it.”

Lockhart, like Gifford before him, had to act as a sort of buffer between Murray’s kindness to his contributors and the articles which they thought should appear in the Quarterly. Yet Lockhart was constantly praising Southey in his communications with Murray.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

“I hope all is right about Southey. We cannot afford to lose him. For the actual bustle of passing politics his is not the hand; but he is continually upholding that grave character and Christian philanthropy which lends effect to the sharper diatribes of mere worldly intellects. If you write to him again on the length of articles, please say our object is only to restore the Q. R. to its own original plan and arrangement. Down to these four or five years past twelve articles were usual in a number. But perhaps he is not the one to be further cut down. I have read Mr. Dodd’s ‘Trial of Charles.’ It is not only well, but splendidly done.”*

Lockhart had often occasion to be at Abbotsford to see Sir Walter Scott, who was then carrying on, single-handed, that terrible struggle with adversity, which has never been equalled in the annals of literature. His son-in-law went down in February 1827 to see him about further articles, but wrote to Murray: “I fear we must not now expect Sir W. S.’s assistance ere ‘Napoleon’ be out of hand.” In the following month of June Lockhart wrote from Portobello: “Sir W Scott has got ‘Napoleon’ out of his hands, and I have made arrangements for three or four articles; and

* The article appeared in No. 72, for October 1827, and was subsequently enlarged and reprinted as a volume of the Family Library. Mr. Dodd, a barrister, was the author of ‘Our Autumn on the Rhine.’

I think we may count for a paper of his every quarter.” Articles accordingly appeared from Sir Walter Scott on diverse subjects, one in No. 71, June 1827, on the ‘Works of John Home’; another in No. 72, October 1827, on ‘Planting Waste Lands’; a third in No. 74, March 1828, on ‘Plantation and Landscape Gardening’; and a fourth in No. 76, October 1828, on Sir H. Davy’s ‘Salmonia, or Days of Fly-Fishing.’ The last article was cordial and generous, like everything proceeding from Sir Walter’s pen. Lady Davy was greatly pleased with it. “It must always be a proud and gratifying distinction,” she said, “to have the name of Sir Walter Scott associated with that of my husband in the review of ‘Salmonia.’I am sure Sir Humphry will like his bairn the better for the public opinion given of it by one whose immortality renders praise as durable as it seems truly felt.”

With respect to ‘Salmonia’ the following anecdote may be mentioned, as related to Mr. Murray by Dr. Gooch, a valued contributor to the Quarterly.

“At page 6 of Salmonia,” said Dr. Gooch, “it is stated that ‘Nelson was a good fly-fisher, and continued the pursuit even with his left hand.’ I can add that one of his reasons for regretting the loss of his right arm was that it deprived him of the power of pursuing this amusement efficiently, as is shown by the following incident, which is, I think, worth preserving in that part of his history which relates to his talents as a fly-fisher. I was at the Naval Hospital at Yarmouth on the morning when Nelson, after the battle of Copenhagen (having sent the wounded before him), arrived in the Roads and landed on the Jetty. The populace soon surrounded him, and the military were drawn up in the market-place ready to receive him; but making his way through the crowd, and the dust and the clamour, he went straight to the Hospital. I went round the wards with him, and was much interested in observing his demeanour to the sailors. He stopped at every bed, and to every man he had something kind and cheering to say. At length he stopped opposite a bed in which a sailor was lying who had lost his right arm close to the shoulder joint, and the following short dialogue passed between them. Nelson: ‘Well, Jack, what’s the matter with you?’ Sailor: ‘Lost my right arm, your Honour?’ Nelson paused, looked down at his own empty sleeve, then at the sailor, and then said playfully, ‘Well, Jack, then you and I are spoiled for fishermen; but cheer up, my brave fellow.’ He then passed quickly on to the next bed, but these few words had a magical effect upon the poor fellow, for I saw his eyes sparkle with delight as Nelson turned away and pursued his course through the wards. This was the only occasion on which I ever saw Lord Nelson.”

In June 1827 Charles Lyell was engaged in writing for the Quarterly an article on Scrope’s ‘Extinct Volcanoes of France.’ He was at that time thinking of beginning a work on geology, and he was under the opinion that writing articles for the Review helped to prepare his mind for the work without exhausting his materials. He had already written two articles for the Quarterly—one on the ‘Transactions of the Geological Society,’ and the other on the ‘State of the Universities.’ Some competent judges thought that in the latter article he had gone too far; but Professor Henslow undeceived him. The Professor said to him one day:

“I have been to Paris, so I have not yet seen your article; but the Professor of Chemistry writes to me from Cambridge that a requisition is signing for the medical students to be required hereafter to attend the lectures on chemistry and botany; I suppose, if it succeeds, we may thank the Quarterly. Now the last drop makes the cup overflow, and if the seed vegetates so soon the soil must have been prepared.”

Captain Francis B. Head was also enrolled as a regular contributor to the Quarterly, In No. 71, June 1827, he wrote his first article on ‘Cornish Mining in America,’ which was so much admired that Mr. Murray requested him to write again on South America. In answer to this proposal Captain Head replied:

Captain Head to John Murray.

“I can fairly assure you that I cannot conceive how anything I can write can possibly be worth the sum you have given me, because writing is not my trade, and never has been my habit; and it is from this feeling that I propose to make a bargain with you, for I feel that, if I was only to receive what the thing is worth, it would be—NOTHING.”

The article which Murray had requested from Head was written from the notes which he had made on separate scraps of paper; but it was so utterly opposed to the view expressed by Southey in the Quarterly—in fact, it was an answer to his review—that it could not be accepted. Lockhart wrote to Head: “I don’t know how long Statesmen are expected to be constant, but Reviewers must make a fashion of being so for three or four months together at least.” Captain Head was annoyed at the rejection of his article, and on his proposing to issue it as an answer to Southey, Mr. Murray agreed to publish it as a pamphlet in the following year.

In January 1828, the Duke of Wellington was called upon to form his first Ministry, and the editor of the Quarterly soon found, as others have in similar circumstances, that the task of defence is more arduous than that of the attack. The question of Catholic Emancipation was pressing for legislation, and the first hints of Parliamentary Reform were making themselves heard. Lockhart and Milman were becoming alarmed at the state of affairs.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

“The fact is, we all feel that the accession of the Tories, which gives light and life to so many concerns, is a damper on the poor Review. Milman apprehends that Croker, in the business of eulogy and defence, will be more an incumbrance than a help; and he, like me, is excessively anxious to see new hands and young blood. Alas! we are all getting old, and it is so difficult to whip up stirring interest about any subject in jaded bosoms.”

Milman was desirous that the Review should be more independent. With respect to his article on ‘Church Patronage and Clerical Jobs,’ he wrote:

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray.

“Why must every appearance of independent opinion be carefully excluded and the air of an apology given to the whole article? Why should the Quarterly Review not caution the Bishops against immoderate jobs, of which they are too often guilty, and then securing all the patronage to their own families? The system of alteration thus adopted compromises not only the independence but the utility of the Review; it ought to feel and assert its own authority on the public mind.”

The Quarterly had as yet taken no special position on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, and Lockhart was much exercised in his mind as to how it should be dealt with. In order to be properly guided he wrote the following letter to Murray:

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

I found that the Quarterly Review had all along kept neutral on the Catholic question, and have considered it due to your interests not to be in a hurry to propose any change as to this matter. My own feeling, however, is, and always has been, that the Question will be carried in our time; and my only difficulty as to advising you results from the sense I entertain of the extreme delicacy of thought and language that would be requisite for handling the subject with manliness, and yet without needlessly alarming and outraging a great body who have hitherto, for aught I can see, been the best and steadiest friends of the Review. May I beg you to say to Mr. Barrow that in this case, as in all others, it is but fair I should see the MS. ere I decide on rejecting or accepting it. The mind of the public, I mean the respectable public, is in that state on this question that everything, or nearly everything, must depend, with me, upon the tone and manner of execution.

Yours truly, J. G. L.

In the meantime Mr. Lockhart went down to Brighton in the summer of 1828, accompanied by Sir Walter Scott, Miss Scott, Mrs. Lockhart and her son John—the Little-john to whom Scott’s charming ‘Tales of a Grandfather,’ which were at that time in course of publication, had been addressed. It was on the boy’s account the party went to Brighton; he was very ill and gradually sinking. While at Brighton, Lockhart had an interview with the Duke of Wellington, and wrote to Murray on the subject.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. May 18th, 1828.

“I have a message from the D. of W. to say that he, on the whole, highly approves the paper on foreign politics, but has some criticisms to offer on particular points, and will send for me some day soon to hear them. I have of course signified my readiness to attend him any time he is pleased to appoint, and expect it will be next week.”

That the Duke maintained his interest in the Quarterly is shown by a subsequent extract:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. Auchenraith, January 19th, 1829.

“Sir Walter met me here yesterday, and he considered the Duke’s epistle as an effort of the deepest moment to the Quarterly and all concerned. He is sure no minister ever gave a more distinguished proof of his feeling than by this readiness to second the efforts of a literary organ. Therefore, no matter about a week sooner or later, let us do the thing justice.”

Before his departure for Brighton, Mr. Lockhart had been commissioned by Murray to offer Sir Walter Scott £1250 for the copyright of his ‘History of Scotland,’ a transaction concerning which some informal communications had already passed:

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

My dear Sir,

Sir W. Scott has already agreed to furnish Dr. Lardner’s ‘Cyclopædia’ with one vol.—‘History of Scotland’—for £1000, and he is now at this work. This is grievous, but you must not blame me, for he has acted in the full knowledge of my connection with and anxiety about the Family Library. I answered him, expressing my great regret and reminding him of Peterborough. I suppose, as I never mentioned, nor well could, money, that Dr. Lardner’s matter appeared more a piece of business. Perhaps you may think of something to be done. It is a great loss to us and gain to them.

Yours truly, J. G. L.

After the failure of Ballantyne and Constable, Cadell, who had in former years been a partner in Constable’s house, became Scott’s publisher, and at the close of 1827 the principal copyrights of Scott’s works, including the novels from ‘Waverley’ to ‘Quentin Durward,’ and most of the poems, were put up to auction, and purchased by Cadell and Scott jointly for £8500. At this time the ‘Tales of a Grandfather’ were appearing by instalments, and Murray wrote to the author, begging to be allowed to become the London publisher of this work. Scott replied:

Sir W. Scott to John Murray.

6, Shandwick Place, Edinburgh, November 25th, 1828. My dear Sir,

I was favoured with your note some time since, but could not answer it at the moment till I knew whether I was like to publish at Edinburgh or not. The motives for doing so are very strong, for I need not tell you that in literary affairs a frequent and ready communication with the bookseller is a very necessary thing.

As we have settled, with advice of those who have given me their assistance in extricating my affairs, to publish in Edinburgh, I do not feel myself at liberty to dictate to Cadell any particular selection of a London publisher. If I did so, I should be certainly involved in any discussions or differences which might occur between my London and Edinburgh friends, which would be adding an additional degree of perplexity to my affairs.

I feel and know the value of your name as a publisher, but if we should at any time have the pleasure of being connected with you in that way, it must be when it is entirely on your own account. The little history designed for Johnnie Lockhart was long since promised to Cadell.

I do not, in my conscience, think that I deprive you of anything of consequence in not being at present connected with you in literary business. My reputation with the world is something like a high-pressure engine, which does very well while all lasts stout and tight, but is subject to sudden explosion, and I would rather that another than an old friend stood the risk of suffering by the splinters.

I feel all the delicacy of the time and mode of your application, and you cannot doubt I would greatly prefer you personally to men of whom I know nothing. But they are not of my choosing, nor are they in any way responsible to me. I transact with the Edinburgh bookseller alone, and as I must neglect no becoming mode of securing myself, my terms are harder than I think you, in possession of so well established a trade, would like to enter upon, though they may suit one who gives up his time to them as almost his sole object of expense and attention.

I hope this necessary arrangement will make no difference betwixt us, being, with regard,

Your faithful, humble Servant, Walter Scott .

On his return to London, Lockhart proceeded to take a house, No. 24, Sussex Place, Regent’s Park; for he had been heretofore living in the furnished apartments provided for him in Pall Mall. Mr. Murray again wrote to him on the subject:

John Murray to Mr. Lockhart.

July 31st, 1828.

As you are about taking or retaking a house, I think it right to inform you now that the editor’s dividend on the Quarterly Review will be in future £325 on the publication of each number; and I think it very hard if you do not get £200 or £300 more for your own contributions.

Most truly yours, John Murray .

At the beginning of the following year Lockhart went down to Abbotsford, where he found his father-in-law working as hard as ever.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. January 4th, 1829.

“I have found Sir Walter Scott in grand health and spirits, and have had much conversation with him on his hill-side about all our concerns. I shall keep a world of his hints and suggestions till we meet; but meanwhile he has agreed to write almost immediately a one volume biography of the great Earl of Peterborough, and I think you will agree with me in considering the choice of this, perhaps the last of our romantic heroes, as in all respects happy. . . . He will also write now an article on some recent works of Scottish History (Tytler’s, &c.) giving, he promises, a complete and gay summary of all that controversy; and next No. a general review of the Scots ballads, whereof some twenty volumes have been published within these ten years, and many not published but only printed by the Bannatyne club of Edinburgh, and another club of the same order at Glasgow. . . . I am coaxing him to make a selection from Crabbe, with a preface, and think he will be persuaded.”

January 8th, 1829.

“Sir Walter Scott suggests overhauling Caulfield’s portraits of remarkable characters (3 vols., 1816), and having roughish woodcuts taken from that book and from others, and the biographies newly done, whenever they are not in the words of the old original writers. He says the march of intellect will never put women with beards and men with horns out of fashion—Old Parr, Jenkins, Venner, Muggleton, and Mother Souse, are immortal, all in their several ways. I am getting on with ‘Napoleon,’* and shall have a good store of MS. for the printer when I return, which will be very soon.”

Lockhart proceeded to Edinburgh to have an interview, on behalf of Murray, with Professor Wilson with a view to securing the Professor’s help in the publication by Murray of the ‘Naval History of Britain.’ Lockhart reported that Wilson was willing to do the work at the rate of £1000 for the four volumes. His proposal was agreed to; but, so far as we can understand, the work, if begun, was never printed or published.

By 1829 Scott and Cadell had been enabled to obtain possession of all the principal copyrights, with the exception of two one-fourth shares of ‘Marmion,’ held by Murray and Longman respectively. Sir Walter Scott applied to Murray through Lockhart, respecting this fourth share The following was Murray’s reply to Sir Walter Scott:—

* The ‘Life of Napoleon,’ by Lockhart, formed the first volumes of Murray’s ‘Family Library.’ See p. 296.

John Murray to Sir Walter Scott.

June 8th, 1829. My Dear Sir,

Mr. Lockhart has at this moment communicated to me your letter respecting my fourth share of the copyright of ‘Marmion.’ I have already been applied to by Messrs. Constable and by Messrs. Longman, to know what sum I would sell this share for; but so highly do I estimate the honour of being, even in so small a degree, the publisher of the author of the poem, that no pecuniary consideration whatever can induce me to part with it. But there is a consideration of another kind, which, until now, I was not aware of, which would make it painful to me if I were to retain it a moment longer. I mean, the knowledge of its being required by the author, into whose hands it was spontaneously resigned in the same instant that I read his request. This share has been profitable to me fifty-fold beyond what either publisher or author could have anticipated; and, therefore, my returning it on such an occasion, you will, I trust, do me the favour to consider in no other light than as a mere act of grateful acknowledgment for benefits already received by, my dear sir,

Your obliged and faithful Servant, John Murray .

P.S.—It will be proper for your man of business to prepare a regular deed to carry this into effect, which I will sign with the greatest self-satisfaction, as soon as I receive it.

Sir W. Scott to John Murray.

Edinburgh, June 12th, 1829. My dear Sir,

Nothing can be more obliging or gratifying to me than the very kind manner in which you have resigned to me the share you held in ‘Marmion,’ which, as I am circumstanced, is a favour of real value and most handsomely rendered. I hope an opportunity may occur in which I may more effectually express my sense of the obligation than by mere words. I will send the document of trans-ference when it can be made out. In the meantime I am, with sincere regard and thanks,

Your most obedient and obliged Servant, Walter Scott .

At the end of August 1829, Lockhart was again at Abbotsford, and sending the slips of Sir Walter’s new article for the next Quarterly. He had already written for No. 77 the article on ‘Hajji Baba,’ and for No. 81 an article on the ‘Ancient History of Scotland.’ The slips for the new article were to be a continuation of the last, in a review of Tytler’s ‘History of Scotland.’ The only other articles he wrote for the Quarterly were his review of Southey’s ‘Life of John Bunyan,’ No. 86, in October, 1830; and his review—the very last—of Pitcairn’s ‘Criminal Trials of Scotland,’ No. 88, in February, 1831.

His last letter to Mr. Murray refers to the payment for one of these articles:

Sir W. Scott to John Murray.

Abbotsford, Monday, 1830. My dear Sir,

I acknowledge with thanks your remittance of £100, and I will be happy to light on some subject which will suit the Review, which may be interesting and present some novelty. But I have to look forward to a very busy period betwixt this month and January, which may prevent my contribution being ready before that time. You may be assured that for many reasons I have every wish to assist the Quarterly, and will be always happy to give any support which is in my power. I have inclosed for Moore a copy of one of Byron’s letters to me. I received another of considerable interest, but I do not think it right to give publicity without the permission of a person whose name is repeatedly mentioned. I hope the token of my good wishes will not come too late. These letters have been only recovered after a long search through my correspondence, which, as usual with literary folks, is sadly confused.

I beg my kind compliments to Mrs. Murray and the young ladies, and am, yours truly,

Walter Scott .

Scott now began to decline rapidly, and was suffering much from his usual spasmodic attacks; yet he had Turner with him, making drawings for the new edition of his poems. Referring to his last article in the Quarterly on Pitcairn’s ‘Criminal Trials,’ he bids Lockhart to inform Mr. Murray that “no one knows better your liberal disposition, and he is aware that £50 is more than his paper is worth.” Scott’s illness increased, and Lockhart rarely left his side.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. Chiefswood, September 16th, 1831.

“Yesterday determined Sir W. Scott’s motions. He owes to Croker the offer of a passage to Naples in a frigate which sails in about a fortnight. He will therefore proceed southwards by land next week, halting at Rokeby, and with his son at Notts, by the way. We shall leave Edinburgh by next Tuesday’s steamer, so as to be in town before him, and ready for his reception. We are all deeply obliged to Croker on this occasion, for Sir Walter is quite unfit for the fatigues of a long land journey, and the annoyances innumerable of Continental inns; and, above all, he will have a good surgeon at hand, in case of need. The arrangement has relieved us all of a great burden of annoyances and perplexities and fears.”

Another, and the last of Lockhart’s letters on this subject, may be given:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

Chiefswood, September 19th, 1831. Dear Murray,

In consequence of my sister-in-law, Annie Scott, being taken unwell, with frequent fainting fits, the result, no doubt of over anxieties of late, I have been obliged to let my wife and children depart by to-morrow’s steamer without me, and I remain to attend to Sir Walter thro’ his land progress, which will begin on Friday, and end, I hope well, on Wednesday. If this should give any inconvenience to you, God knows I regret it, and God knows also I couldn’t do otherwise without exposing Sir W. and his daughter to a feeling that I had not done my duty to them. On the whole, public affairs seem to be so dark that I am inclined to think our best course, in the Quarterly, may turn out to have been and to be, that of not again appearing until the fate of this Bill has been quite settled. My wife will, if you are in town, be much rejoiced with a visit; and if you write to me, so as to catch me at Rokeby Park, Greta Bridge, next Saturday, ’tis well.

Yours, J. G. Lockhart .

P.S.—But I see Rokeby Park would not do. I shall be at Major Scott’s, 15th Hussars, Nottingham, on Monday night.

It would be beyond our province to describe in these pages the closing scenes of Sir Walter Scott’s life: his journey to Naples, his attempt to write more novels, his failure, and his return home to Abbotsford to die. His biography, by his son-in-law Lockhart, one of the best in the whole range of English literature, is familiar to all our readers; and perhaps never was a more faithful memorial erected, in the shape of a book, to the beauty, goodness, and faithfulness of a noble literary character.

In this work we are only concerned with Sir Walter’s friendship and dealings with Mr. Murray, and of these the foregoing correspondence, extending over nearly a quarter of a century, is sufficient comment. When a committee was formed in Sir Walter’s closing years to organize and carry out some public act of homage and respect to the great genius, Mr. Murray strongly urged that the money collected, with which Abbotsford was eventually redeemed, should be devoted to the purchase of all the copyrights for the benefit of Scott and his family: it cannot but be matter of regret that this admirable suggestion was not adopted.

During the year 1827 the present Mr. Murray was residing in Edinburgh as a student at the University, and attended the memorable dinner, at which Scott was forced to declare himself the author of the ‘Waverley Novels.’ His account of the scene, as given in a letter to his father, forms a fitting conclusion to this chapter.

“I believe I mentioned to you that Mr. Allan had kindly offered to take me with him to a Theatrical Fund dinner, which took place on Friday last. There were present about 300 persons—a mixed company, many of them not of the most respectable order. Sir Walter Scott took the chair, and there was scarcely another person of any note to support him except the actors. The dinner, therefore, would have been little better than endurable, had it not been remarkable for the confession of Sir Walter Scott that he was the author of the ‘Waverley Novels.’

“This acknowledgment was forced from him, I believe, contrary to his own wish, in this manner. Lord Meadowbank, who sat on his left hand, proposed his health, and after paying him many compliments, ended his speech by saying that the clouds and mists which had so long surrounded the Great Unknown were now revealed, and he appeared in his true character (probably alluding to the exposé made before Constable’s creditors, for I do not think there was any preconcerted plan). Upon this Sir Walter rose, and said, ‘I did not expect on coming here to-day that I should have to disclose before 300 people a secret which, considering it had already been made known to about thirty persons, had been tolerably well kept. I am not prepared to give my reasons for preserving it a secret, caprice had certainly a great share in the matter. Now that it is out, I beg leave to observe that I am sole and undivided author of those novels. Every part of them has originated with me, or has been suggested to me in the course of my reading. I confess I am guilty, and am almost afraid to examine the extent of my delinquency. “Look on’t again, I dare not!” The wand of Prospero is now broken, and my book is buried, but before I retire I shall propose the health of a person who has given so much delight to all now present, The Bailie Nicol Jarvie.’

“I report this from memory. Of course it is not quite accurate in words, but you will find a tolerable report of it in the Caledonian Mercury of Saturday. This declaration was received with loud and long applause. As this was gradually subsiding, a voice from the end of the room was heard* exclaiming in character, ‘Ma conscience! if my father the Bailie had been alive to hear that ma health had been proposed by the Author of Waverley,’ &c., which, as you may suppose, had a most excellent effect.”

* The speaker on this occasion was the actor Mackay, who had attained considerable celebrity by his representation of Scottish characters, and especially of that of the famous Bailie in ‘Rob Roy.’

CHAPTER XXIX. NAPIER’S ‘PENINSULAR WAR’—CROKER’S ‘BOSWELL’—THE FAMILY LIBRARY—THE LADIES OF LLANGOLLEN, ETC.

The public has long since made up its mind as to the merits of Colonel Napier’s ‘History of the Peninsular War.’ It is a work which none but a soldier who had served through the war as he had done, and who, moreover, combined with practical experience a thorough knowledge of the science of war, could have written. A proof of this is afforded by the miserable failure of Southey’s History. Napier, with all his knowledge and abilities, was not free from the prejudices of party. He was a Whig; his friend Sir John Moore was the military hero of his heart, and it was long before he could persuade himself that Wellington would succeed where Moore had failed. He was inclined to do at least full justice to the French, and in particular to Marshal Soult, with whom he had formed a firm friendship while a prisoner in his hands. This led to Soult’s entrusting to him his confidential papers and despatches.

At the outset of his work he applied to the Duke of Wellington for his papers. This rather abrupt request took the Duke by surprise. The documents in his possession were so momentous, and the great part of them so confidential in their nature, that he felt it to be impossible to entrust them indiscriminately to any man living. He, however, promised Napier to put in his hands any specified paper or document he might ask for, provided no confidence would be broken by its examination. He also offered to answer any question Napier might put to him, and with this object invited him to Strathfieldsaye, where the two Generals discussed many points connected with the campaign.

Though Murray was the publisher of Southey’s History of the War in Spain, Napier applied to him to undertake his work, and some correspondence ensued before an arrangement was definitely arrived at. In May 1827 we find Murray sending to Colonel Napier General Foy’s posthumous and fragmentary History of the War, which had been submitted to him for publication:—

Colonel W. Napier to John Murray.

Bromham, Wilts, December 5th, 1828. Dear Sir,

My first volume is now nearly ready for the press, and as I think that in matters of business a plain straightforward course is best, I will at once say what I conceive to be the valuable part of my work, and leave you to make a proposition relative to publication of the single volume, reserving further discussion about the whole until the other volumes shall be in a more forward state.

The volume in question commences with the secret treaty of Fontainebleau concluded in 1809, and ends with the battle of Corunna. It will have an appendix of original documents, many of which are extremely interesting, and there will also be some plans of the battles. My authorities have been:—

1. All the original papers of Sir Hew Dalrymple.

2. Those of Sir John Moore.

3. King Joseph’s correspondence taken at the battle of Vittoria, and placed at my disposal by the Duke of Wellington. Among other papers are several notes and detailed instructions by Napoleon which throw a complete light upon his views and proceedings in the early part of the war.

4. Notes of conversations held with the Duke of Wellington for the especial purpose of connecting my account of his operations.

5. Notes of conversation with officers of high rank in the French, English, and Spanish services.

6. Original journals, and the most unreserved communications with Marshal Soult.

7. My own notes of affairs in which I have been present.

8. Journals of regimental officers of talent, and last but not least, copies taken by myself from the original muster rolls of the French army as they were transmitted to the Emperor.

Having thus distributed all my best wares in the bow window, I shall leave you to judge for yourself; and, as the diplomatists say, will be happy to treat upon a suitable basis. In the meantime,

I remain, your very obedient Servant, W. Napier .

About a fortnight later (25th December, 1827), he again wrote that he would have the pleasure of putting a portion of his work into Mr. Murray’s hands in a few days; but that “it would be disagreeable to him to have it referred to Mr. Southey for an opinion.” Some negotiations ensued, in the course of which Mr. Murray offered 500 guineas for the volume. This proposal, however, was declined by Col. Napier, whereupon Murray sent the following letter:—

John Murray to Colonel Napier.

January 18th, 1828. Dear Sir,

I believe you will find that it is not in my character to make any ungenerous offer for a valuable work, and I really thought at the time that the sum I proposed was liberal. But our friend, Dr. Somerville, has disclosed to me since so many important particulars of its probable public interest, that I am disposed to take my chance of a far greater circulation than I had before calculated upon, and I will therefore offer you a thousand guineas for the copyright of the first volume of your work, with the option of taking the future volumes at the same sum per volume. I must print it of course in my own way. I assure you I do this with the highest estimation of your MS., created by the little which I have seen of it, and with a most earnest desire to improve my connection with its distinguished author, for whom I shall always retain the greatest respect. I beg you to believe that I am, dear sir,

Most faithfully yours, John Murray .

A few days later, Colonel Napier wrote to Mr. Murray, accepting his offer of terms, and the volume was accordingly published in the course of 1828. Notwithstanding the beauty of its style and the grandeur of its descriptions, the book gave great offence by the severity of its criticism, and called forth a multitude of replies and animadversions. More than a dozen of these appeared in the shape of pamphlets bearing their author’s names, added to which the Quarterly Review, departing from the general rule, gave no less than four criticisms in succession. This innovation greatly disgusted the publisher, who regarded them as so much lead weighing down his Review, although they proceeded from the pen of Duke’s right-hand man, the Rt. Hon. Sir George Murray. They were unreadable and produced no effect. It is needless to add the Duke had nothing to do with them. Washington Irving received a copy of the volume at Seville, and wrote to Murray that General Giron (Marquis of Amarillas) stated that it was full of inaccuracies, especially when relating to Spain, the Spanish soldiers, and the Juntas; that it was too much founded on French accounts, and on estimates made by reconnoitring parties, which were totally at variance with the facts as existing in official papers.

Mr. Murray published no further volumes of the ‘History of the Peninsular War,’ but at his suggestion Colonel Napier brought out the second and succeeding volumes on his own account. In illustration of the loss which occurred to Mr. Murray in publishing the first volume of the history, the following letter may be given, as addressed to the editor of the Morning Chronicle:—

John Murray to the Editor of the Morning Chronicle.

Albemarle Street, February 13th, 1837. Sir,

My attention has been called to an article in your paper of the 14th of January, containing the following extract from Colonel Napier’s reply to the third article in the Quarterly Review, on his ‘History of the Peninsular War.’ *

“Sir George Murray only has thrown obstacles in my way, and if I am rightly informed of the following circumstances, his opposition has not been confined to what I have stated above. Mr. Murray, the bookseller, purchased my first volume, with the right of refusal for the second volume. When the latter was nearly ready, a friend informed me that he did not think Murray would purchase, because he had heard him say that Sir George Murray had declared it was not ‘The Book.’ He did not point out any particular error, but it was not ‘The Book,’ meaning, doubtless, that his own production, when it appeared, would be ‘The Book.’ My friend’s prognostic was not false. I was offered just half of the sum given for the first volume. I declined it, and published on my own account, and certainly I have had no reason to regret that Mr. Bookseller Murray waited for ‘The Book,’ indeed, he has since told me very frankly that he had mistaken his own interest.”

In answer to the first part of this statement, I beg leave to say, that I had not, at the time to which Colonel Napier refers, the honour of any acquaintance with Sir George Murray, nor have I held any conversation or correspondence with him on the subject of Colonel Napier’s book, or of any other book on the Peninsular War. In reply to the second part of the statement, regarding the offer for Colonel Napier’s second volume of half the sum (viz. 500 guineas), that I gave for the first volume (namely, 1000 guineas), I

* The article appeared in No. 111 of Quarterly, April 1836.

have only to beg the favour of your insertion of the following letter, written by me to Colonel Napier, upon the occasion referred to.

Albemarle Street, May 13th, 1829. My dear Sir,

Upon making up the account of the sale of the first volume of ‘The History of the War in the Peninsula’ I find that I am at this time minus £545 12s. At this loss I do by no means in the present instance repine, for I have derived much gratification from being the publisher of a work which is so intrinsically valuable, and which has been so generally admired, and it is some satisfaction to me to find by this result that my own proposal to you was perfectly just. I will not, however, venture to offer you a less sum for the second volume, but recommend that you should, in justice to yourself, apply to some other publishers; if you should obtain from them the sum which you are right in expecting, it will afford me great pleasure, and, if you do not, you will find me perfectly ready to negotiate; and in any case I shall continue to be, with the highest esteem, dear Sir,

Your obliged and faithful servant, John Murray .

I am confident you will do me the justice to insert this letter, and have no doubt its contents will convince Colonel Napier that his recollection of the circumstances has been incomplete.

I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient humble Servant, John Murray .

It may not be generally known that we owe to Colonel Napier’s work the publication of the Duke of Wellington’s immortal ‘Despatches.’ The Duke, upon principle, refused to read Napier’s work; not wishing, as he said, to quarrel with its author. But he was made sufficiently acquainted with the contents from friends who had perused it, and who, having made the campaigns with him, could point to praise and blame equally undeserved, to designs misunderstood and misrepresented, as well as to supercilious criticism and patronizing approval, which could not but be painful to the great commander. His nature was too noble to resent this; but he resolved, in self-defence, to give the public the means of ascertaining the truth, by publishing all his most important and secret despatches, in order, he said, to give the world a correct account not only of what he did, but of what he intended to do.

Colonel Gurwood was appointed editor of the ‘Despatches,’ and, during their preparation, not a page escaped the Duke’s eye, or his own careful revision. Mr. Murray, who was honoured by being chosen as the publisher, compared this wonderful collection of documents to a watch: hitherto the general public had only seen in the successful and orderly development of his campaigns, as it were the hands moving over the dial without fault or failure, but now the Duke opened the works, and they were enabled to inspect the complicated machinery—the wheels within wheels—which had produced this admirable result. It is enough to state that in these despatches the whole truth relating to the Peninsular War is fully and elaborately set forth.

At the beginning of 1829 Croker consulted Murray on the subject of an annotated edition of ‘Boswell’s Johnson.’ Murray was greatly pleased with the idea of a new edition of the work by his laborious friend, and requested him to put his proposals in writing. Accordingly Croker, in a few days (9th January, 1829), sent Murray a long letter, stating the method he proposed to pursue in carrying out the work.*

Mr. Murray at once closed with Croker’s proposal, and in his answer wrote, “I shall be happy to give, as something in the way of remuneration, the sum of one thousand guineas.” Mr. Croker accepted the offer, and proceeded immediately with the work.

* The letter is printed in the ‘Croker Correspondence,’ ii. 24.

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

Dear Murray,

In reply to your letter of last night, which I received this morning, allow me to say that your pecuniary terms are offered in the same spirit of liberality (I had almost said of prodigality) which has marked all your transactions of that nature which have come to my knowledge. I, in return, am bound to do all I can to make my work not unworthy of such liberality. I think it will be better not to embarrass the pages with biographical notes, but to subjoin a biographical index, where each name will, once for all, tell its own story. I shall also endeavour to throw as much as I can into the text, and to make my notes as compendious as the nature of the explanation to be given will admit.

Yours, dear Murray, very sincerely, J. W. Croker .

Mr. Murray communicated to Mr. Lockhart the arrangement he had made with Croker. His answer was:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. Jan. 19th, 1829.

“I am heartily rejoiced that this ‘Johnson,’ of which we had so often talked, is in such hands at whatever cost. Pray ask Croker whether Boswell’s account of the Hebridean Tour ought not to be melted into the book. Sir Walter has many MS. annotations in his ‘Boswell,’ both ‘Life’ and ‘Tour,’ and will, I am sure, give them with hearty good will. . . . He will write down all that he has heard about Johnson when in Scotland; and, in particular, about the amusing intercourse between him and Lord Auchinleck—Boswell’s father—if Croker considers it worth his while.”

Sir Walter Scott’s offer of information,* to a certain extent, delayed Croker’s progress with the work. He wrote to Mr. Murray (17th Nov. 1829):—“The reference to Sir Walter Scott delays us a little as to the revises,

* Sir Walter’s Letter to Croker on the subject will be found in the ‘Croker Correspondence,’ ii. 28.

but his name is well worth the delay. My share of the next volume (the 2nd) is quite done; and I could complete the other two in a fortnight.”

While the work was passing through the press Lockhart again wrote:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

“I am reading the new ‘Boswell’ with great pleasure, though, I think, the editor is often wrong. A prodigious flood of light is thrown on the book assuredly; and the incorporation of the ‘Tour’ is a great advantage. Now, do have a really good Index. That to the former edition I have continually found inadequate and faulty. The book is a dictionary of wisdom and wit, and one should know exactly where to find the dictum magistri. Many of Croker’s own remarks and little disquisitions will also be hereafter among the choicest of quotabilia.”

Croker carried out the work with great industry and vigour, and it appeared in 1831. It contained numerous additions, notes, explanations, and memoranda, and as the first attempt to explain the difficulties and enigmas which lapse of time had created, it may not unfairly be said to have been admirably edited; and though Macaulay, according to his own account, “smashed” it in the Edinburgh,* some fifty thousand of the ‘Life’ have been sold.

It has been the fashion with certain recent editors of ‘Boswell’s Johnson’ to depreciate Croker’s edition; but to any one who has taken the pains to make himself familiar with that work, and to study the vast amount of information there collected, such criticism cannot but appear most ungenerous. Croker was acquainted with, or

* The correspondence on the subject, and the criticism on the work by Macaulay, will be found in the ‘Croker Correspondence,’ vol. ii. PP- 24-49.

sought out, all the distinguished survivors of Dr. Johnson’s own generation, and by his indefatigable efforts was enabled to add to the results of his own literary research, oral traditions and personal reminiscences, which but for him would have been irrevocably lost.

The additions of subsequent editors are but of trifling value compared with the information collected by Mr. Croker, and one of his successors at least has not hesitated slightly to transpose or alter many of Mr. Croker’s notes, and mark them as his own.

Mrs. Shelley, widow of the poet, on receiving a present of Croker’s ‘Boswell,’ from Mr. Murray, said:—

Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.

“I have read ‘Boswell’s Journal’ ten times: I hope to read it many more. It is the most amusing book in the world. Besides that, I do love the kind-hearted, wise, and gentle Bear, and think him as lovable and kind a friend as a profound philosopher. I do not see, in your list of authors whose anecdotes are extracted, the name of Mrs. D’Arblay; her account of Dr. Johnson, Mrs. Thrale, &c., in her ‘Memoirs of Dr. Burney,’ are highly interesting and valuable.”

Among the various other books published by Mr. Murray between 1827 and 1830, may be mentioned Captain Franklin’s ‘Narrative of a Second Expedition to the Shores of the Polar Sea, 1825-7.’ When the manuscript of this work was referred to Mr. Barrow, his opinion was that it was “a very dull book. Clapperton, I think, will make you amends, but I am obliged to dish him and trim him as much as I dare.” Notwithstanding the unfavourable opinion of Mr. Barrow, Franklin’s manuscript was accepted by Mr. Murray, for £1200, and was at once sent to press.

Crofton Croker, a cousin of John Wilson, author of the ‘Irish Fairy Legends,’ was described by Sir Walter Scott as being “as little as a dwarf, as keen-eyed as a hawk, and of easy, prepossessing manners, something like Tom Moore.” His first series of the ‘Fairy Legends’ brought him £80; but the demand for them was so considerable, that when the second series was ready for the press, we find Mr. Murray writing to him:—

John Murray to Mr. Crofton Croker.

February 12th, 1827. My Dear Crofton,

Thou art, by far, too good a fellow to be quarrelled with; and, therefore, sans mot, I will do as you propose—give you £300 for the copyright of the first and two new volumes of the ‘Irish Fairy Legends,’ half on the day of publication (is this as you mean or wish?), and the other half by note at six months from the said day of publication. I really long to see you; but pray believe that I am always,

My dear friend, most sincerely yours, John Murray .

Mr. Henry Taylor submitted his play of ‘Isaac Comnenus,’—his first work—to Mr. Murray, in February 1827. Lockhart was consulted, and, after perusing the play, he wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

“There can be no sort of doubt that this play is every-way worthy of coming out from Albemarle Street. That the author might greatly improve it by shortening its dialogue often, and, once at least, leaving out a scene, and by dramatizing the scene at the Synod, instead of narrating it, I think sufficiently clear: but, probably, the author has followed his own course, upon deliberation, in all these matters. I am of opinion, certainly, that no poem has been lately published of anything like the power or promise of this.”

Lockhart’s suggestion was submitted to Mr. Taylor, who gratefully acknowledged his criticism, and proceeded to amend his play. He wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Taylor to John Murray.

February 22nd, 1827. My dear Sir,

I thank you for your note; and have much pleasure in acknowledging the liberality shown in your modification of my proposal. With regard to the scene at the Synod: though it is more than three years since I wrote that scene, I recollect being conscious, at the time, that it was un-dramatically managed, and wishing to manage it as your friend has suggested I thought then I could not do it, but, perhaps, I may be able to do it now.

Mr. Taylor made a very unusual request. He proposed to divide the loss on his drama with the publisher! He wrote to Mr. Murray:—

“I have been pretty well convinced, for some time past, that my book will never sell, and, under these circumstances, I cannot think it proper that you should be the sole sufferer. Whenever, therefore, you are of opinion that the book has had a fair trial, I beg you to understand that I shall be ready to divide the loss equally with you, that being, I conceive, the just arrangement in the case.”

Though Mr. Lockhart gave an interesting review of ‘Isaac Comnenus,’ in the Quarterly, it still hung fire, and did not sell. A few years later, however, Henry Taylor showed what he could do, as a poet, by his ‘Philip van Artevelde,’ which raised his reputation to the highest point. Moore, after the publication of this drama, wrote in his ‘Diary’:—” I breakfasted in the morning at Rogers’s, to meet the new poet, Mr. Taylor, author of ‘Philip van Artevelde’: our company, besides, being Sydney Smith and Southey. ‘Van Artevelde’ is a tall, handsome young fellow. Conversation chiefly about the profits booksellers make of us scribblers. I remember Peter Pindar saying, one of the few times I ever met him, that the booksellers drank their wine in the manner of the heroes in the hall of Odin, out of authors’ skulls.” This was a sharp saying; but Rogers, if he had chosen to relate his own experiences when he negotiated with Mr. Murray about the sale of Crabbe’s works, and the result of that negociation, might have proved that the rule was not of universal application.

Mrs. Graham, who by this time had become Mrs. Callcott, after her return from Rio de Janeiro, where she had been companion and governess to the Princesses of Brazil, again devoted herself to literary work. Mr. Murray put into her hands, for the purpose of correcting, and in a great measure re-writing, Lord Byron’s ‘Voyage of the Blonde to the Sandwich Islands.’ Although Mr. Murray had sent her £100 for her work, he afterwards added something more, against which she protested in the following words:—

Mrs. Callcott to John Murray. February 20th, 1827.

“Thank you many thousand times more for thinking of me so kindly than for the value of the bill. One thing I doubt about. I considered myself already paid for the Blonde, and do not understand how, all things considered, you can give me any more for it. Besides, there are so many teasing you about it, that I feel uneasy at receiving more. So, unless you can show me good cause for taking more, I won’t use the said bill, or receive anything beyond the £100 you have already given me. . . . I will take care that the work shall be as well done as I can make it, although thus paid when only half done. My best love to Mrs. Murray and your girls. Mr. Callcott joins me in all manner of good wishes to you. In two hours I shall no longer be Maria Graham, but under any name your grateful and sincere friend.”

Dr. Paris had a curious correspondence with Mr. Murray in 1829. He had published an elementary work, called ‘Philosophy in Sport made Science in Earnest,’ anonymously, lest it should damage his professional position; for there are some persons who think that a man who writes a book, and still more one who writes a poem, is good for nothing in the way of professional business. Dr. Paris’s book, however, sold remarkably well, and he then consulted Mr. Murray as to a second edition. “You would be very much amazed,” he said, “as to the various opinions I have received upon the subject. The Novelist is for getting rid of the Philosophy, and the Philosopher is anxious to exclude the Novel,—so that, if I were to follow the advice given, I should be in the situation of the husband with a young and old wife—the one pulling out all the grey, and the other all the brown hairs; and all that would be left of the work would be its pasteboard covers.” A new edition was, however, published, and it long continued to be a popular book with young people, eager for the first glimmerings of science.

A letter from Mr. Croker to Murray, respecting the Letters of Horace Walpole to Mr. Mason, which were published some years later, is worth recording:—

Mr. Croker to John Murray.

May 7th, 1828. Dear Murray,

I return, having read through, the first volume of ‘Horace Walpole’s Letters to Mr. Mason.’ Two of these letters establish, by direct evidence, what the world had all along suspected, that the ‘Heroic Epistle’ and the ‘Postscript’ were written by Mason. They also confute Mr. Pilkington’s notion that Walpole had a considerable share in the composition of the lively Satires, but they leave undecided my suspicion that Walpole furnished many of the ideas and facts, though Mason supplied all the poetry.

This is the only point of novelty, I had almost said of interest, which we find in these letters. They are the least amusing of Walpole’s. The reason is that he and Mason had at this time no common acquaintance, and hardly any common topic, but Mason’s ‘Life of Gray.’ So that the chit-chat of Society, and the strings of proper names, all set in anecdotes, which adorn his other letters have not a place in these. I dare say the subsequent correspondence improves, but even this volume is very well worthy of the press. There are some particulars about Gray which are still interesting in Walpole’s way of telling them, though Mason has given them to the public in his own way.

I think it a pity that there is not a general edition of Walpole’s letters, with copious notes. Miss Berry could, and I think ought to, do this honour to the memory of her old friend. His letters, I am satisfied, will be the amusement of posterity, as Madame de Sévigné’s are; but a great deal of the wit will be lost, and the whole will become obscure if notes are not (before it is too late) added to explain his allusions, many of which are already dark even to me—a kind of contemporary, for I was fifteen years old when he died.

Yours faithfully, J. W. Croker .

‘The Family Library’ has already been mentioned. Mr. Murray had long contemplated a serial publication, by means of which good literature and copyright works might be rendered cheaper and more accessible to a wide circle of readers than they had hitherto been. We have already seen his correspondence with Mr. Constable on the subject in 1825, when the Edinburgh publisher was about to bring out his Miscellany.

The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was established in 1828, with Henry Brougham as Chairman. Mr. Murray subscribed £10 to this Society, and agreed to publish their ‘Library of Entertaining Knowledge.’ Shortly afterwards, however, he withdrew from this undertaking, which was transferred to Mr. Knight, and reverted to his own proposed publication of cheap works.

The first volume of ‘The Family Library’ appeared in April 1829. Murray sent a copy to Charles Knight, who returned him the first volume of the ‘Library of Entertaining Knowledge.’

Mr. Charles Knight to John Murray.

“We each launch our vessels on the same day, and I most earnestly hope that both will succeed, for good must come of that success. We have plenty of sea-room and need never run foul of each other. My belief is that, in a very few years, scarcely any other description of books will be published, and in that case we that are first in the field may hope to win the race.”

Mr. Murray’s intention was to include in the Library works on a variety of subjects, including History, Biography, Voyages and Travels, Natural History, Science, and general literature. They were to be written by the best known authors of the day—Sir Walter Scott, Southey, Milman, Lockhart, Washington Irving, Barrow, Allan Cunningham, Dr. Brewster, Captain Head, G. R. Gleig, Palgrave, and others. The collection was headed by an admirable ‘Life of Napoleon,’ by J. G. Lockhart, partly condensed from Scott’s ‘Life of Napoleon Bonaparte,’ and illustrated by George Cruikshank. When Lockhart was first invited to undertake this biography he consulted Sir Walter Scott as to the propriety of his doing so. Sir Walter replied:—

Sir. W. Scott to Mr. Lockhart. Oct. 30th, 1828.

“Your scruples about doing an epitome of the ‘Life of Boney’ for the Family Library that is to be, are a great deal over delicate. My book in nine thick volumes can never fill the place which our friend Murray wants you to fill, and which if you don’t some one else will right soon. Moreover, you took much pains in helping me when I was beginning my task, and I afterwards greatly regretted that Constable had no means of remunerating you, as no doubt he intended when you were giving him so much good advice in laying down his grand plans about the Miscellany. By all means do what the Emperor* asks. He is what the Emperor Napoleon was not, much a gentleman, and knowing our footing in all things, would not have proposed anything that ought to have excited scruples on your side.”†

The book met with a warm reception from the public, and went through many editions. The ‘Life of Alexander the Great,’ by the Rev. J. Williams, Rector of the Academy, Edinburgh, was followed by Allan Cunningham’s ‘Lives of the Artists,’ in six volumes, which is probably the best work Cunningham ever produced. In the preface to the last volume, after thanking others for their assistance, he wrote:—

“I have incurred obligation to many friends during the course of the work, but to none so much as to Mr. Lockhart who not only suggested the undertaking, but, when in town, has been so kind as to help me in its progress, often pruning what was redundant, and bringing light to what was obscure.”

When the first volumes appeared, Mr. Murray sent a copy of them to his friend Sharon Turner.

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.

“I am quite happy that your ‘Family Library’ succeeds so well; not only for your own sake, but because the

* From the time of his removal to Albemarle Street, Mr. Murray was universally known among “the Trade” as “The Emperor of the West.”

† Lockhart’s ‘Life of Scott.’

success is evidence of the soundness of the British heart. I was but this very morning thinking how much good you will do by it, and how much the public have really been indebted to you. I am one of those who know that the Quarterly Review was entirely your own conception and plan. I need not say how much that has benefited the public mind. Your ‘Family Library’ is composed on the right moral principles, and as far as it has gone, inculcates the right and useful feelings. My idea this morning at my breakfast, as I looked over the list of your eighteen intended publications in this sense was, that it would be an admirable counteraction on the minds of youth to those evil or useless publications which I perceive to be soliciting them from several other quarters. It will make valuable knowledge, and the better sentiments popular, and I said to myself, Murray may always feel, when he recollects his Quarterly and ‘Family Library’ that he has not lived uselessly to Mankind.”

The next work in ‘The Family Library’ was the Rev. H. H. Milman’s ‘History of the Jews,’ in three vols., which occasioned much adverse criticism and controversy to Milman himself, who was regarded by some orthodox Churchmen as a man of heretical views. It is difficult for us who live in such different times to understand or account for the tempest of disapprobation with which a work, which now appears so innocent, was greeted, or the obloquy with which its author was assailed. The ‘History of the Jews’ was pronounced unsound; it was alleged that the miracles had been too summarily disposed of; Abraham was referred to as an Arab sheik, and Jewish history was too sacred to be submitted to the laws of ordinary investigation. Hence Milman was preached against, from Sunday to Sunday, from the University and other pulpits, in the most unmeasured language, as one of the most dangerous and pernicious of writers. Even Mr. Sharon Turner expostulated with Mr. Murray as to the publication of the book. He said he had seen it in the window of Carlisle, the infidel bookseller, “as if he thought it suited his purpose.” Turner went on to say that he regretted that the author shrank from the Miracles and the Prophecies, and that Milman had got his ideas from the German semi-theology.

Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray.

“There is no middle way between truth and falsehood. Revelation either is revelation, or it is not. It is to be believed if true, and rejected if false. All revelation must be supernatural, and therefore miraculous. A revelation without miracle is to my mind an impossibility. The absence of miracles is a demonstration that the Pretender is an impostor; for how can the Deity communicate His will to man but by supernatural means. It was consistent in Hume to deny miracles, because he was an atheist; and if atheism be truth, there certainly can be no miracles, because there would be no Divine power to produce them. But as atheism is a false opinion, and as a Creating Deity exists, miracles are always possible, and are the natural and necessary companions of His will, because that being an addition to ordinary nature must be what is beyond ordinary nature, and therefore supernatural.”

Mr. Murray sent Sharon Turner’s expostulation to Mr. Milman, who was then engaged with the third volume, and on sending it to Mr. Murray for press, he wrote:—

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray. Reading, Feb. 1830.

“I think the sooner it is out the better; not that it will satisfy the fanatics, but it will I think remove the scruples of all sensible men. I return Mr. Sharon Turner’s letter. For his character I have the highest respect, but should have valued his opinion on this subject more highly some twenty years ago. His letter, as indeed his later works, savour strongly of the ‘Homilies of the Good Archbishop of Granada.’ Upon his principle, we ought to believe every miracle of every volume of the ‘Lives of the Saints.’ The often-repeated charge of following the Germans is rank nonsense. Except in one passage, where I have given different opinions, and theirs among the rest, there is not one explanation of a miracle borrowed from a German divine. I have used them only for other purposes. I will do nothing rashly, but if I am driven to it, I will show them, not whence I have derived my notion of the miracles, but where precisely the same explanations are to be found—in Bishop Mant and Dr. D’Oyly’s ‘Bible’—and if I am forced, I will print in parallel columns.

“‘Family Library’—‘Family Bible.’ There is but one miracle in which we do not agree, and in that I have only stated opinions, one of which is that of Grotius, and have given none of my own. . . . As for Carlisle’s window, the Record may be thanked for that. As tending to keep up the clamour I regret it; as anxious for the extension of sound religion, and confident of the effect of my book on every unbigoted mind, I only wish all Carlisle’s customers would read it. A noble lord once wrote to the bishop of a certain diocese to complain that a baronet, who lived in the same parish, brought his mistress to church, which sorely shocked his regular family. The bishop gravely answered, that he was very glad to hear that Sir —— brought his naughty lady to church, and hoped that she would profit by what she heard there, and amend her ways. So say I of Carlisle’s customers.”

29th March, 1830.

“I have thought it as well both for my own satisfaction, as well as yours, to draw out the parallel between my miracles and those of the ‘Family Bible.’ It would I think be worth while to set them up on a slip, but by no means to publish without further consideration, as such a step might wound the feelings of those with whom I would stand well. I have received, circuitously, an opinion to which I attach much weight, that I should answer Faussett.* I am throwing a few thoughts together in order to be prepared, though I am by no means convinced

* Among those who publicly condemned the ‘History of the Jews’ were Dr. Godfrey Faussett, Canon of Christ Church, Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, in a sermon preached in 1830, and afterwards published; as well as the Rev. J. J. Blunt, in his Hulsean Lectures for 1832.

of the wisdom of the step. I should be glad to know what my friends think on the subject, particularly men like Hallam. I will write however by to-night’s post to Lockhart on this and on several other points. He is still desirous that I should undertake the ‘History of Christianity.’ What say you? Are you willing to engage? I am weary to death of the Jews, I almost wish they were with the Egyptians at the bottom of the Red Sea.”

In the third volume of ‘The History of the Jews,’ Mr. Milman took the opportunity of introducing in the preface a reply to his critics The following letter is interesting as indicating what the Jews themselves thought of the history.

Mr. Magnus to John Murray.

March 17th, 1834. Sir,

Will you have the goodness to inform me of the Christian name of the Rev. Mr. Milman, and the correct manner of spelling his name; as a subscription is about to be opened by individuals of the Jewish nation for the purpose of presenting him with a piece of plate for the liberal manner in which he has written their history.

The piece of plate was duly subscribed for and presented, with every demonstration of acknowledgment and thanks.

Mr. Milman’s ‘History of Christianity,’ was not published until 1840; and it was pronounced to be an able, learned, and profound work. In short, Milman’s Histories have long since taken their place among English Classics, and continue in great demand to the present day. His ‘History of the Jews’ did not prevent his preferment, as he was promoted from the vicarage of St. Mary’s, Reading, to the rectorship of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, and a canonry in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter; after which, in 1849, he was made Dean of St. Paul’s.

Captain Head took much pains in preparing his ‘Life of Bruce,’ the African traveller. Although he was guided by Bruce’s own journal, he desired to make the book original.

Captain Head to John Murray.

“I have had a tough job, but the heaviest part is now over. In going through the volume, all Bruce’s best descriptions are given in his own words. The rest of the narrative, which is very carelessly written, I have condensed, using Bruce’s words as much as possible. I have left out all his dark histories and abstruse theories. Such an indefatigable devil never existed. Joseph Hume is nothing to him.”

By the assistance of Mr. Lockhart, Head obtained an introduction to the Foreign Office, where he found some important information. He again wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Captain Head to John Murray.

June 14th, 1830. My dear Sir,

Since I last saw you I have been for some days at the Foreign Office, where they gave me all Bruce’s letters from Algiers; and I was surprised to find that those published by Murray* are not copies of the letters which reached the Foreign Office, but composed afterwards apparently from memory or notes! I therefore copied what I wanted from the letters themselves. The job you have given me is indeed a much more difficult one than I believe you had any idea of. I have been jogging very hard and constantly; but I am sorry to say that I find the subject growing on my hands. I am so very averse to a long-winded story, or a big book, that I assure you I had every wish, and have made many endeavours, to bring the subject within the dimensions of your original proposal (which I shall be perfectly willing still to execute), but on mature reflection, for your interest as well as my own reputation, I am now of opinion that you should decidedly determine on having

* ‘Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile.’ By James Bruce. Edited, with a Life of Bruce, by Alexander Murray. 7 vols. 1805.

a second volume, for in books, as well as in steam, condensation may be carried too far.

The book was however condensed, and published in one volume, according to the original arrangement. Mr. Barrow, after completing his ‘Mutiny of the Bounty ,’ sent in the MSS. to Mr. Murray, who forwarded to him 300 guineas for his work. “It is too much,” said Barrow, “and it is in accordance with your usual liberality. You must therefore let me send you back the odd £l5.” And Barrow’s cheque for £15 was enclosed.

When the forty-seven volumes of ‘The Family Library’ had been completed, the whole series and the remaining stock were handed over to Tegg & Co. ‘The Life of Peterborough,’ by Sir Walter Scott, and ‘The Life of Wolfe,’ by Robert Southey, were never published.

In the summer of 1829, Mr. Murray with his family made a tour in the West of England and in Wales, and the following account of a visit to the survivor of the Ladies of Llangollen will form an interesting conclusion to this chapter:—

John Murray to John Murray, junior. Corwen, August 24th, 1829.

“I am also travelling in a part of Europe very little known to the English, I mean their own country. I have been perfectly astonished, and perfectly filled with admiration and delight, at the richness, splendour, and magnificence of the soil and scenery which I have passed through on my way from Chepstow, through Herefordshire (a most splendid county, scarcely known and never visited), through Llangollen to this place, and I cannot refrain from thinking of the thousands of the wealthy, noble, and accomplished of this nation who, after having visited almost every other part of this world, have at length passed into the world to come, without knowing anything of their own country.

“We had a great treat yesterday, and the day previous, in being invited to introduce ourselves to the celebrated Miss Ponsonby, of whom you must have heard as becoming early tired of fashionable life, and having withdrawn, accompanied by a kindred friend, Lady Eleanor Butler, to a delightful and at that period unfrequented spot, a quarter of a mile from Llangollen, overhanging the rapid and beautiful river Dee. The latter lady died there a few months ago at the age of 91, after having lived with Miss Pensonby in the same cottage upwards of fifty years It is very singular that the ladies intending to retire from the world, absolutely brought all the world to visit them, for after a few years of seclusion their strange story was the universal subject of conversation, and there has been no person of rank, talent, and importance in any way who did not procure introductions to them. All that was passing in the world they had fresh as it arose, and in four hours’ conversation with Miss Ponsonby one day, when we were alone, and during three the next, when Mrs. M. and my daughters were with me, I found that she knew everybody and everything, and was at the age of 80, or nearly so, a most inexhaustible fund of entertaining instruction and lively communication. The cottage is remarkable for the taste of its appropriate fitting up with ancient oak, presented by different friends, from old castles and monasteries, &c., none of it of less antiquity than 1200 years. She declared to me that during the whole fifty years she never knew a moment that hung heavy upon her, and no sorrows but from the loss of friends.”

CHAPTER XXX. MOORE’S ‘LIFE OF BYRON.’

In 1827 or 1828 Mr. Hanson, the late Lord Byron’s solicitor, wrote to Murray, enquiring, on behalf of the executors, whether he would be willing to dispose of his interest in the first five cantos of ‘Don Juan.’ Mr. Murray, however, had long been desirous of publishing a complete edition of the works of Lord Byron, “for the public,” he wrote, “are absolutely indignant at not being able to obtain a complete edition of Lord Byron’s works in this country; and at least 15,000 copies have been brought here from France.” Murray proposed that those copyrights of Lord Byron, which were the property of his executors, should be valued by three respectable publishers, and that he should purchase them at their valuation. Mr. Hobhouse, to whom as one of the executors this proposal was made, was anxious that the complete edition should be published in England with as little delay as possible, but he stated that “some obstacles have arisen in consequence of the Messrs. Hunt having upon hand some hundred copies of their two volumes, which they have asked a little time to get rid of, and for which they are now accounting to the executors.”

Murray requested Mr. Hanson to apply to the executors, and inform him what sum they required for the works of Lord Byron, the copyrights of which were in their possession. This they refused to state, but after considerable delay, during which the Hunts were disposing of the two volumes, the whole of the works of Lord Byron which were not in Mr. Murray’s possession were put up to auction, and bought by him for the sum of £3885. These included the ‘Hours of Idleness,’ eleven cantos of ‘Don Juan,’ the ‘Age of Bronze,’ and other works—all of which had already been published.

Notwithstanding the destruction of Lord Byron’s Memoirs, described in a previous chapter, Murray had never abandoned the intention of bringing out a Biography of his old friend the poet, for which he possessed plenteous materials in the mass of correspondence which had passed between them. Although his arrangement with Thomas Moore had been cancelled by that event, his eye rested on him as the fittest person, from his long intimacy with the poet, to be entrusted with the task, for which, indeed, Lord Byron had himself selected him.

Accordingly in 1826 author and publisher seem to have drawn together again, and begun the collection of materials, which was carried on in a leisurely way, until Leigh Hunt’s scandalous attack on his old patron and benefactor* roused Murray’s ardour into immediate action.

It was eventually resolved to publish the Life and Correspondence together; and many letters passed between Murray and Moore on the subject. Moore wrote to Murray from Sloperton Cottage:—

Mr. Moore to John Murray.

July 31st, 1826. My Dear Sir,

I am rather anxious to know what you have done, since I left town, towards collecting the letters and other papers for our intended work. As my general plan must depend upon the extent of my materials, it will be necessary for

* ‘Recollections of Lord Byron and some of his Contemporaries,’ 1828. 4to.

me to have all these fairly under my eyes before I can set myself definitely to the task; and the less time we now lose with our undertaking the better. I forgot to mention, the last time I had the pleasure of seeing you, that Mr. Rogers has kindly consented to take all the business part of the transaction between us on himself.

The negotiations did not take definite shape till 1828, when Murray wrote:—

John Murray to Mr. Moore.

January 25th, 1828. My Dear Sir,

In consequence of Hunt’s infamous publication respecting Lord Byron, I have felt it a duty no longer to withhold the means which I think I possess of doing justice to Lord Byron’s character; and I have submitted to your friend Mr. Rogers a proposal to this effect, which he has desired me to say meets with his entire approbation. I am therefore anxious for an opportunity of seeing you immediately. Mr. Rogers thought you were likely to be in town soon; but if this is unlikely or inconvenient, I will make a point of going to you, if agreeable, on Tuesday; in which case I shall be glad if you will be so kind as to tell me in what coach I had better secure a seat.

I am, my dear Sir, your faithful Servant, John Murray .

A few days later, Moore wrote from Nottingham, stating that he had been at Newstead, examining the Abbey and searching for materials in the neighbourhood. Lord Byron’s servants had nearly all disappeared, and he was therefore unable to obtain much information on the spot. He enquired about the Rochdale property, and whether it was still in the family. “Have you done anything with Hanson?” he asked. “As I am engaged upon the youth of Lord Byron, it will be a great object to have whatever he will give immediately.”

Murray sent down to Sir Walter Scott, for his perusal, the letters he had received from Lord Byron, and Mr. Lockhart answered his letter:—

“Sir Walter,” he said, “has read the memorandum books you were so good as to permit me to show him, and has, I am glad to say, corrected the blank leaves with many highly interesting additamenta, of which we shall see use, I hope, hereafter.”

In the following month Mr. Murray sent to Mr. Moore a large instalment of Lord Byron’s correspondence and recollections:—

John Murray to Mr. Moore.

February 27th, 1828. My dear Sir.

I send you six volumes of Lord Byron’s MSS. and some loose sheets. Three more volumes, the remainder, shall be forwarded to you, as you will point out to me. I trust that you will feel strongly the propriety of not allowing a single individual—always excepting Mrs. Moore—to have the power of saying that he has seen these volumes. The reason must be perfectly obvious on the face of it, and it could not fail of operating most injuriously to your work. I must beg that you will return these volumes to me in exactly the same state in which they are now sent to you, and that anything which, for any reason, you do not consider of use for the memoirs you will not use in any way. I hope these conditions are not unreasonable; and so success attend your efforts.

Most sincerely yours, John Murray .

Moore, while still searching for materials, writes to Murray:—

Mr. Moore to John Murray.

“I am most anxious to know whether you have made any movement towards Hanson. A fresh batch of very interesting materials has arrived from Southwell, and everything promises that the early part of the ‘Life’ (before we can touch at all upon the great mass of either your papers or mine) will be full of interest.” Moore expressed himself most anxious to obtain information from Scrope Davies. “He is, both from his cleverness, and the materials he must possess, rather a formidable competitor, and it might at least be worth your while to enter into negotiations with him for his work, so as not to let it fall into the hands of any one who could make it a weapon against us. Dr. Bowring has been very handsome in furnishing Byron’s letters to him so freely; and he has obtained from Italy the first part of the Contessa’s sketch, with a promise of continuation.”

It was hoped that Mrs. Shelley (widow of the poet) might give some information relative to the interviews between Byron and Shelley. On her return from Italy, Mr. Murray seems to have thought of purchasing the copyright of a selection of Shelley’s works, and communicated with Sir Timothy Shelley on the subject. The answer to his letter came from Mrs. Shelley herself. She wrote (13th Jan. 1827), “I write merely to say that the copyrights are mine, and that if you wish to make such a purchase, I should be happy to enter into a negotiation with you upon it.” Nothing further seems to have been done about the use of Shelley’s papers; but it opened up a communication between Murray and Mrs. Shelley on this and other subjects.

In the course of the following year (18th Feb. 1828) Mrs. Shelley, during her pressing necessities, applied to Mr. Murray for a loan of £100. Moore was willing to guarantee one half of the loan, but Murray advanced it himself. Moore wrote to him as follows:—

Mr. Moore to John Murray.

“In the middle of my toilette, I write to say that I am quite delighted at what you have done. She (Mrs. Shelley) has contributed very useful materials to our work, and has still some letters of Shelley to Lord B. which she may, I have no doubt, be prevailed upon to give. It is very hard that, while phlebotomising you so desperately myself, I should thus be an accomplice with others to draw blood from you.”

Mrs. Shelley accepted with “many thanks,” Mr. Murray’s advance of £100, and at the same time endeavoured to enlist his interest on behalf of a novel—most probably ‘Lodore’—which she had just completed.

Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.

February 19th, 1828.

With regard to my novel, I shall be much pleased if you will undertake its publication . . . Mr. Marshall mentioned to me that you asked whether I understood Italian and its patois, saying that you had a view in asking this. I lived nearly six years in Italy; its language is perfectly familiar to me; and I should not hesitate to undertake a work that required intimate acquaintance with it. I should be very glad if you would communicate your ideas to me on the subject, and happy to comply with your suggestions, so far as my abilities permit . . . I received Mr. Gifford’s edition of ‘Ford,’ and Lord Byron’s works, for which I beg sincerely to thank you.

Your obedient Servant, Mary Shelley.

Mrs. Shelley continued to write to Mr. Murray for books for her novel; more particularly for Leland’s ‘History of Ireland,’ and ‘Mémoires de Philip de Comines.’ “I was sorry to hear from Mr. Marshall,” she says in one of her letters, “that you had decided against the ‘Promessi Sposi.’” She writes again at Christmas, enclosing a letter for Mr. Moore, “I am rather in haste, as it is an answer concerning the ‘Life,’ which I am delighted to hear is on the point of appearing.” Later in the year she writes to Mr. Murray:—

Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.

33 Somerset Street, Portman Square. November 12th, 1829. My dear Sir,

I am sorry to hear from Mr. Moore that you decline my Romance, because I would rather that you published it than any other person. I can assure you I feel all the kindness of your message to me through Mr. Moore. Do you remember speaking to me about a ‘Life of the Empress Josephine,’ ‘Madame de Staël,’ etc.? When I have got free from my present occupation, I will communicate with you on the subject, and I hope by some plan, either of my writing for your ‘Family Library,’ or in some other way, to liquidate my debt; or I must do it even in a more usual manner. I am aware of your kindness concerning it, but I could not consent that an act of civility on my part to Mr. Moore should be brought forward as cancelling my debt to you. Besides, it would make me break a vow I made, never to make money of my acquaintance with Lord Byron. His ghost would certainly come and taunt me if I did. This does not remove but rather enhance the value I have for your kind intention.

I am, dear Sir, your obliged, Mary Shelley.

Fletcher, Byron’s servant, had returned to England, and Moore requested that Murray should see him, for an account of Byron’s illness and death had appeared in the Westminster Review, evidently obtained from Fletcher. Moore suggested that he should be “tipped.” “I think,” said Moore, “that £20 would be abundant for Fletcher. As to what his communications are worth, twenty pence would more than cover it, but I think it as well to buy up his stupid tongue.”

An agreement was drawn up by the solicitors of Murray and Moore with respect to the publication of the Life. Moore enters in his Diary (22nd Feb. 1828):—“At three to Murray’s, to sign and seal our agreement. Present, the two solicitors, young Turner and Clark, and Lockhart, the witness. Dined with Murray in celebration of the event; company, Sir F. Freeling, Thomas Tooke, T. Campbell, James Smith, and some women.”

Five days later, Mr. Moore went down to Sloperton Cottage, and “made his first regular start on ‘Lord Byron’s Life.’”

Mr. Moore to John Murray.

March 30th, 1828. Dear Sir,

You are hereby authorized to pay into the hands of Messrs. Longman and Co., on my account, three thousand pounds (according to the terms of the agreement signed and sealed between you and me on the 22nd of February last), obtaining, at the same time, from them a relinquishment of their claim to that amount on me.

Your obliged servant, Thomas Moore.

On hearing from Messrs. Longman and Co. that the money had been paid, Moore again wrote to Murray:—

“The whole proceeding, I must say, is highly creditable to your liberality, and I only trust that the result may be all that you deserve.”

While Moore was proceeding with his work—the advertisement of which had evidently excited much expectation and interest—he wrote to Murray:—

March 13th, 1828.

“A man has just written me a comical proposal, reminding me of the sole question some wiseacre put to Canova on visiting his workshop, viz. ‘What he did with his chippings?’—this gentleman having heard that you and I are so overstocked with materials of Lord Byron that we actually do not know what to do with them, offers to take the refuse off our hands at a guinea per line! What do you think of this for ‘the trade?’”

Moore at first proceeded very slowly in writing out the ‘Life,’ but in order to satisfy Mr. Murray that he was conscientiously at work, he wrote to him:—

Mr. Moore to John Murray. August 18th, 1828.

“I am getting on rather slowly at present, as the chief weight of what I have to do falls on the earlier part; but so soon as I arrive at the correspondence with you and me, paste and scissors will get over the ground rapidly, and it will be difficult to keep it from being a very large volume.”

November 7th, 1828.

“I have to run up to town in about eight or ten days—not for the purpose of printing immediately, but in order to have as much of my manuscript as I can copy out by that time calculated by your printer, so as to enable us to judge of the possible extent of our volume. It is my wish, with your permission, not to go to press till I get fairly over the marriage—as, after that period, there will be such an uninterrupted run of letters as will keep us from being too closely hunted by the devils, and leave me freer for the abundant correction I always make in printing. Though there is, of course, some up-hill work for me yet, I now know my way, and see clearly to the end of it. I am able to cover almost every inch of the ground with his own letters, which is the best footing Biography can have, and you’ll see that we shall make (what poor Byron himself called Mildmay’s ‘Crim. Con. case’) ‘a very pretty story’ of it.”

In the midst of his labours, Moore’s child, his only daughter, was hovering between life and death. “I am sure,” he wrote to Murray, “you, as a father, will feel for me, when I tell you that (after all our anxieties and hopes) the dreadful truth that there is but little chance of our dear child surviving, is beginning to force itself upon us.” Moore was devoted to his little daughter Anastasia. One day she said to him, “Papa, you write much poetry, but you never write anything for me.” He at once penned these few lines, which—so far as we know—have not yet been printed:—*

“Little May-Fly, She seems in the sky, The dew is on the Flower; The beautiful Bee Hums round the tree, And the Bird sings in the Bower. “Little May-Fly Both you and I Should bless that God in Heaven, By whom the Flower The Bee and the Bower For our delight were given.”

The child rallied, and, indeed, began to show symptoms of amendment, which enabled Moore to run up town to see Murray on the subject of the Life. In Moore’s diary occur the words:—“Dined at Murray’s; company, Sotheby, Chantrey, and the Lockharts.” He returned to Sloperton, to see after his little invalid; and informed Mr. Murray of the result:—

Mr. Moore to John Murray. February 15th, 1829.

“If our little girl’s amendment should admit of her being removed to town, I think in about two or three weeks hence I shall take up my whole establishment and fix myself within reach of you somewhere, till our opus magnum is achieved . . . In looking over again his [Lord Byron’s] letters to you from Italy, I am still more impressed

* Communicated in MS. by the Rev. J. B. Hughes, Staverton Vicarage.

with their value and interest. He was shooting his shafts far beyond Albemarle Street when he wrote these. But we shall be obliged to sacrifice most of his Venetian Amourettes —they were such wretched things in themselves, and he makes so boyishly much of them. One of my great objects, as you will see in reading me, is to keep my style down to as much simplicity as I am capable of; for nothing could be imagined more discordant than the mixture of any of our Asiatico-Hibernian eloquence with the simple English diction of Byron’s letters.”

Murray showed the early part of ‘Byron’s Life’ to Lockhart, who replied to him at once:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. February 23rd, 1829.

“I can’t wait till to-morrow to say that I think the beginning of ‘Byron’ quite perfect in every way—the style simple, and unaffected, as the materials are rich, and how sad. It will be Moore’s greatest work—at least, next to the ‘Melodies,’ and will be a fortune to you. My wife says it is divine. By all means engrave the early miniature. Never was anything so drearily satisfactory to the imagination as the whole picture of the lame boy’s start in life.”

Moore was greatly touched by this letter. He wrote from Sloperton:—

Mr. Moore to John Murray.

“Lockhart’s praise has given me great pleasure, and his wife’s even still greater; but, after all, the merit is in my subject—in the man, not in me. He must be a sad bungler who would spoil such a story.”

As the work advanced, Sir Walter Scott’s opinion also was asked.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. September 29th, 1829.

“Sir Walter has read the first 120 pages of Moore’s ‘Life of Byron’; and he says they are charming, and not a syllable de trop. He is now busy at a grand rummage among his papers, and has already found one of Lord Byron’s letters which shall be at Mr. Moore’s service forthwith. He expects to find more of them. This is curious, as being the first of ‘Byron’ to Scott.”

Moore was not able to carry out his intention of immediately moving to London, for his child was still very ill.

Mr. Moore to John Murray. March 7th, 1829.

“I begin to feel great confidence in our work; and as soon as my head has got over the crisis of its present trial, I shall devote myself totally to the finishing of it. I thought I had felt my utmost about our poor child, but as the last moment approaches, I find it hard—very hard—to bear up.”

Three days after, the child died, to the infinite sorrow of Moore and his wife, but his grief made him devote himself with all the more assiduity to his literary work.

In March he wrote to Murray, about Dr. Kennedy’s ‘Religious Conversations with Lord Byron;’ and in April, about the visit of Byron to Leigh Hunt in Horsemonger Lane Gaol, and the passing of the Bill for the emancipation of the Roman Catholics.

Mr. Moore to John Murray. Bowood, 17th April, 1829.

“You know Mitchell, I think, Aristophanes Mitchell. He was one of our party the day Lord Byron and I dined with Leigh Hunt in prison, and I wish you particularly to get from him all he recollects of that dinner in quod—above all, ask him whether Scott (the shot Scott) was not one of those who dropped in in the evening . . . .

“How peaceable you all are in town after this destructive Bill!* I little thought I should ever live to see

* Roman Catholic Disabilities Bill.

the end of my politics—but so it is. The Duke has had the merit of exorcising the devil of rebellion out of me, and I am now (at your service) as loyal and well-behaved an author as you could desire. In this feeling, too, I rather think I am the representative of the great mass (or rather Mass-goers) of my countrymen. All we wanted was fair treatment, and God forgive you and your Quarterly Reviewers who so long grudged it to us.”

Murray’s next request to Moore was that he should sit to Sir Thomas Lawrence for his portrait to place beside those of famous authors, which adorned his drawing-room. He had portraits of Byron, Scott, Coleridge, Southey, Gifford, Croker, Barrow, Irving, Campbell, Hallam, Lockhart, and Crabbe, among poets and literary men; portraits of Sir John Franklin, Captain Parry, Captain Lyon, Sir John Richardson, Major Denham, Richard Landor, and Captain Clapperton, among the voyagers to the North Pole and discoverers in Africa. Moore replied that he was “quite overwhelmed” by the compliment, not thinking that “his head was worth the costly pencil of Sir Thomas.” “I must, however,” he added, “try and furbish it up into its least potato-look for the occasion.”

Mr. Moore to John Murray. 29th June, 1829.

“I was on the point of writing you a long business letter on the subject of ways and means, but may as well, as I have the opportunity, despatch it briefly here. Last night, on looking over my banker’s book (‘a beggarly account’), I was startled by seeing that we are within a day or two of the resurrection of that awful bill—that ghost of specie which we have ‘doomed for a time to walk the earth’ before it returned to plague us, and which, without your assistance, it is wholly out of my power to lay. Now, what I want to know briefly is, whether, taking into consideration the unexpected delay that has occurred in our work, and the dependence which I had placed (vainly as it now appears) on my power of bringing it to a conclusion about this time, so as to give me a claim upon the sum still remaining in your hands—whether, taking all this into your merciful consideration, you would think it too hard upon you, or too soft of you, to advance me forthwith the twelve months’ bill, and let me raise the supplies on it.”

Murray at once complied with Moore’s request, laid the ghost of his bill, and enabled him to proceed in comfort with the work. Meanwhile he sat for his portrait to Sir Thomas Lawrence, and dined with him at Murray’s in company with other friends. In his Diary occur the words (19th November, 1829):—“Dined at Murray’s; company, Sir J. Mackintosh (whom I was lucky enough to sit by), Sir T. Lawrence, Irving, Lockhart, the Somervilles, and Mr. Miller,* who has written well, it seems on law.”

The first volume of ‘Lord Byron’s Life and Letters,’ published on the 1st of January, 1830, was read with enthusiasm, and met with a very favourable reception. Moore says in his Diary, that “Lady Byron was highly pleased with the ‘Life,’” but among the letters received by Mr. Murray, one of the most interesting was from Mrs. Shelley, to whom a presentation copy had been sent.

Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.

January 19th, 1830.

Except the occupation of one or two annoyances, I have done nothing but read, since I got ‘Lord Byron’s Life.’ I have no pretensions to being a critic, yet I know infinitely well what pleases me. Not to mention the judicious arrangement and happy tact displayed by Mr. Moore, which distinguish the book, I must say a word concerning the style, which is elegant and forcible. I was particularly struck by the observations on Lord Byron’s character

* John Miller, of Lincoln’s Inn, a frequent contributor to the Quarterly.

before his departure to Greece, and on his return. There is strength and richness, as well as sweetness.

The great charm of the work to me, and it will have the same to you, is that the Lord Byron I find there is our Lord Byron—the fascinating, faulty, philosophical being—daring the world, docile to a private circle, impetuous and indolent, gloomy, and yet more gay than any other. I live with him again in these pages—getting reconciled (as I used in his lifetime) to those waywardnesses which annoyed me when he was away, through the delightful tone of his conversation and manners.

His own letters and journals mirror himself as he was, and are invaluable. There is something cruelly kind in this single volume. When will the next come? Impatient before, how tenfold more so am I now. Among its many other virtues, this book is accurate to a miracle. I have not stumbled on one mistake with regard either to time, place, or feeling.

I am, dear Sir, Your obedient and obliged Servant, Mary Shelley.

Moore hoped to be able to get something from the American publishers for his work. In his Diary he wrote:—

“Left some of the printed sheets with Irving to be sent off to America, he having undertaken to make a bargain for me with the publishers there. If I make but a tenth of what he has done lately for himself in that quarter, I shall be satisfied.”

Mr. Irving’s negotiations answered their purpose to a certain extent, and for the advance sheets of the two volumes of ‘The Life of Byron,’ Moore received £500, but the biography was shortly after reproduced in many forms by all manner of publishers.

The first part of ‘Lord Byron’s Life and Letters’ was reprinted in New York and Paris, and smuggled copies were sent to England for sale. Surreptitious copies were printed at Dublin and Glasgow, but advertisements inserted in the newspapers, cautioning any printer against printing the book, or any bookseller against selling it, put a stop to this theft.

We return for a moment to Moore’s Diary, in which he says (1st March, 1830):—

“Dined with Murray. Meant to have joined the Lansdownes at the play to see Fanny Kemble, but had a note from Murray before dinner, to say: ‘For God’s sake do not go to Lord Lansdowne’s this evening; you live with him, and it can be of no consequence to him, but to me it will be thrusting a knife into my feelings.’ Company at Murray’s: James Smith, the Lockharts, Irving, &c., &c. Stayed there the whole evening, and sang—the first time for near two months—and was actually pleased with the sound of my own voice. A niece of Madame d’Arblay also sang some things with an Italian, and very prettily.”

Towards the end of the year Mr. Moore took up his residence for a time at Murray’s house, where he says he was received “most kindly.”

The preparation of the second volume proceeded mere rapidly than the first, for Lord Byron’s letters to Murray and Moore during the later years of his life covered the whole period, and gave to the record an almost autobiographical character. It appeared in January 1831, and amongst many other readers of it Mrs. Somerville, to whom Mr. Murray sent a present of the book, was full of unstinted praise.

Mrs. Somerville to John Murray.

January 13th, 1831.

You have kindly afforded me a source of very great interest and pleasure in the perusal of the second volume of Moore’s ‘Life of Byron.’ In my opinion, it is very superior to the first; there is less repetition of the letters; they are better written, abound more in criticism and observation, and make the reader better acquainted with Lord Byron’s principles and character. His morality was certainly more suited to the meridian of Italy than England; but with all his faults there is a charm about him that excites the deepest interest and admiration. His letter to Lady Byron is more affecting and beautiful than anything I have read; it must ever be a subject of regret that it was not sent; it seems impossible that it should not have made a lasting impression, and might possibly have changed the destinies of both. With kind remembrances to Mrs. Murray and the young people,

Believe me, truly yours, Mary Somerville.

There were, however, different views of the second volume, of which a few specimens are given:—

Colonel D’Aguilar to John Murray. January 15th, 1831.

“I have sat up all the night, and devoured every line of it. As a whole it is beautiful, the genuine transcript of his mind and body. But there are passages in it on the score of discretion which can never be sufficiently regretted. I lament this the more because you know the pains I took to prevent it. . . . . The minor and minute detail of those grosser irregularities, to which, for a time he abandoned himself in the rashness of despair, and when his mind was without an object, should never have been inserted. . . . . I grieve over this beyond measure, because so little is wanting to make the book perfect. . . . . I would apply to Mr. Moore what Johnson said of Gray, ‘When he writes in this way it is vain to praise and useless to blame him.’”

The Right Hon. J. W. Croker to John Murray.

“As to what you say of Byron’s volume, no doubt there are longueurs, but really not many. The most teasing part is the blanks, which perplex without concealing. I also think that Moore went on a wrong principle, when, pub-lishing any personality, he did not publish all. It is like a suppression of evidence. When such horrors are published of Sir S. Romilly, it would have been justice to his memory to show that, on the slightest provocation, Byron would treat his dearest friend in the same style. When his sneers against Lady Byron and her mother are recorded, it would lessen their effect if it were shown that he sneered at all man and womankind in turn; and that the friend of his choicest selection, or the mistress of his maddest love, were served no better, when the maggot (selfishness) bit, than his wife or his mother-in-law.”

At another date, Mr. Croker, when returning Leigh Hunt’s ‘Tatler’ to Mr. Murray, observed:—

The Right Hon. J. W. Croker to John Murray.

January 21st, 1831. Dear Murray,

I return you the ‘Tatler’ that you lent me. I think Mr. Hunt makes more of Moore’s letters than they deserve. I certainly wish Moore had not flattered him so much, but we should recollect that Moore and Mr. Hunt were at that day fellow labourers in a party, and as poor Gifford said, “politics, like misery, brings a man acquainted with strange bedfellows.” I really wonder that Hunt had nothing more piquant to produce; and as to the mention of Lord Moira, I see no insincerity in it, as politics over heated Moore’s private friendship for Hunt, so it over cooled that for Lord Moira. Party is much the strongest passion of an Englishman’s mind. Friendship, love, even avarice, give way before it. There is not one of us who does not tolerate partizans whom one would indignantly reject as ordinary acquaintances. So that, on the whole, I look with a very excusing eye on the flummery with which Moore thought fit to feed the vanity of the weekly critic. As to his present opinions of the man, I suppose they are the correct ones, but I know neither him nor his works, except ‘Rimini.’

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

In the second volume of the Life, references were made to Mr. Gally Knight’s ‘Poems,’ and ‘Persian Tales.’ Mr. Knight was dissatisfied with the allusions to his works, and wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Gally Knight to John Murray. 17th February, 1831.

“I have seen the second volume of Moore’s ‘Life of Byron,’ and though it can be matter of surprise to no one to find himself the object of the spleen of the noble author, yet I confess I am surprised at seeing myself so gratuitously offered up as a victim to the public—especially as Lord Byron’s opinions on the subject of my little poems in the second volume are the exact converse of what they were in the first—thereby demonstrating that whoever remained, ever so quietly and unaffectedly, the friend of Lady Byron, could not escape the malignity of her lord. What makes the pickings at my little poem in the second volume the more remarkable is that ‘Ilderim’ had been submitted to Lord Byron at his own request some time before it was published, and that he strongly exhorted me to let it appear. I have still in my possession a letter of Lord Byron’s in which he desires me to put the work into your hands. Au reste, the second volume appears to me to be neither more nor less than ‘Don Juan’ in prose, and I cannot say how much I regret to see Lord Byron’s amours so openly paraded before the public. It is an indecorous exhibition, and but too likely to do harm, for young men will admire the whole of the life, because it belonged to genius; and will imitate the only part of it with which mental superiority had nothing to do.”

The appearance of the Life induced Captain Medwin to publish his “Conversations with Lord Byron,” a work now chiefly remembered as having called forth from Murray, who was attacked in it, a reply which, as a crushing refutation of personal charges, has seldom been surpassed.*

* Mr. Murray’s answer to Medwin’s fabrications is published in the Appendix to the 8vo. edition of ‘Lord Byron’s Poems.’

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray.

“I send you an ode which may form an addition to the proposed edition of my poems. I expected before this to have heard from you on this subject, but suppose that Captain Medwin and the Quarterly editorship have occupied your time tolerably fully. Did Lord Byron or the gallant Captain originate the mass of mendacity which the work contains? I conceive no work has been published in my day equally disgraceful to all concerned. I had some thoughts of requesting a contradiction of my being the author of the article on Shelley, as I could not now be supposed to deprecate his lordship’s wrath, which I certainly in his lifetime should not have attempted to avert by disowning what he had no right to attribute to me. But you know that I have always avoided most scrupulously any criticism upon my brother contemporary poets; and for that reason only should I wish a disclaimer of the article in question to be made in my name.”

We have seen how on two previous occasions Rogers had, at Murray’s cost, exhibited great liberality to Crabbe, and, through Lord Byron’s agency, to Godwin. Similar influences were at work in the case of Moore, when the question of payment for the Biography came to be settled. Moore wrote to his publisher on the subject, and his letter crossed that which Murray had already written, as follows:—

John Murray to Mr. Moore.

May 24th, 1831.

The cross letter, as you term it, did not reach me until this morning, and, from the manner in which the subject of it had been previously settled, I should not have thought it necessary to allude to it again, were it not for the interference of your “advising” friends.

This is not a solitary instance in which some of them have with morbid liberality evinced a kind disposition to give large sums of money to their own friends, to be paid by drafts, not upon their own bankers, but upon mine. Would these honorary patrons of men of letters enquire into facts, they would sometimes be startled into the meritorious selfishness of making the case their own; and then before they ventured to impugn the liberality of others, they would perhaps consider what, in similar circumstances, they would have done themselves. Had these warmhearted friends made enquiries on the present occasion, they would have been informed that the copyright of the ‘Life of Byron’ was purchased by the following sums, viz.:

£ 1. By discharging the author’s bond to Messrs. Longman, with payment of interest thereon 3020 2. By two bills 1200 3. By Cash 100 4. By remitting what was due from America 300 £4620 Interest on the above £3020 for twenty months before the first volume was published, not charged to author, but paid by publisher 250 ——— £4870 Besides contributing one half of the work myself by Lord Byron’s letters to his publisher, valued at £2000. The printing of the work cost bonâ fide 4430 Copyright (as above) 4870 ——— £9300 Total receipt, even if the whole were sold 9000 ——— Loss on the first edition to its illiberal proprietor £300

As a mercantile speculation it is hardly to be thought of, and there has been such a hue and cry raised against certain parts of the work, that it is quite a livre defendu in some families; so that the entire sale of the work cannot be depended on.

Let your friends see this statement, and then decide upon the conduct of,

My dear Sir, Yours most sincerely, John Murray .

This explanation must have satisfied Mr. Moore, for there was no further controversy about it. On the other hand, an arrangement was made for an illustrated edition of Lord Byron’s Life, and a correspondence took place as to the subjects of the illustrations. Amongst the usual number of reviews of the biography was one by Lockhart in the Quarterly (No. 87), which was very favourable; but an article, by Mr. Croker in No. 91, on another of Moore’s works—the ‘Life of Lord Edward Fitzgerald’—was of a very different character. Murray told Moore of the approaching appearance of the article in the next number, and Moore enters in his Diary, “Saw my ‘Lord Edward Fitzgerald’ announced as one of the articles in the Quarterly, to be abused of course; and this too immediately after my dinings and junketings with both author and publisher.”

Mr. Moore to John Murray.

October 25th, 1831.

... I see that what I took for a joke of yours is true, and that you are at me in this number of the Quarterly. I have desired Power to send you back my copy when it comes, not liking to read it just now for reasons. In the meantime, here’s some good-humoured doggerel for you:—

THOUGHTS ON EDITORS. Editur et edit. No! Editors don’t care a button, What false and faithless things they do; They’ll let you come and cut their mutton, And then, they’ll have a cut at you. With Barnes I oft my dinner took, Nay, met e’en Horace Twiss to please him: Yet Mister Barnes traduc’d my Book For which may his own devils seize him! With Doctor Bowring I drank tea, Nor of his cakes consumed a particle; And yet th’ ungrateful LL.D. Let fly at me, next week, an article! John Wilson gave me suppers hot, With bards of fame, like Hogg and Packwood; A dose of black-strap then I got, And after a still worse of Blackwood. Alas! and must I close the list With thee, my Lockhart of the Quarterly! So kind, with bumper in thy fist,— With pen, so very gruff and tartarly. Now in thy parlour feasting me, Now scribbling at me from your garret,— Till, ’twixt the two, in doubt I be, Which sourest is, thy wit or claret?

Should you again see the Noble Scott before he goes, remember me most affectionately to him.

Ever yours, Thomas Moore.

Mr. Murray now found himself at liberty to proceed with his cherished scheme of a complete edition of Lord Byron’s works.

John Murray to Mr. Moore.

February 28th, 1832.

When I commenced this complete edition of Byron’s works I was so out of heart by the loss upon the first edition of the ‘Life,’ and by the simultaneous losses from the failure of three booksellers very largely in my debt, that I had little if any hopes of its success, and I felt myself under the necessity of declining your kind offer to edit it, because I did not think that I should have had it in my power to offer you an adequate remuneration. But now that the success of this speculation is established, if you will do me the favour to do what you propose, I shall have great satisfaction in giving you 500 guineas for your labours.

Most sincerely yours, John Murray .

Mr. Murray was desirous of adding to the new edition of the works of Byron Mrs. Shelley’s notes on those passages in the author’s career with which she was acquainted, and accordingly wrote to her making the proposal. Her reply was as follows:—

Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.

May 4th, 1832.

I do not know how to thank you sufficiently for the very agreeable presents you have made me and my friend. You are quite magnificent in your generosity, and nothing can be more welcome than your books.

I am afraid I shall scarcely meet all your wishes in the intended notes. The subject of Lord Byron’s adventures is greatly exhausted; and, besides, the names of ladies are scarcely fair subjects for publication. However, I will do what I can. Of course you will take care that I am not brought forward or named, as you are aware how sedulously I try to keep in the background. By the bye, I must mention that early next month I leave town for some little time, so that I should be glad that Mr. Finden should see me during the course of this present one.

May I, without intruding on you, mention another subject? You apparently consider the closing of your ‘Family Library’ as conclusive, on the subject of my father’s writing to you. Is this necessary? You are but too well aware of the evil days on which literature is fallen, and how difficult it is for a man, however gifted, whose existence depends on his pen, to make one engagement succeed another with sufficient speed to answer the calls of his situation. Nearly all our literati have found but one resource in this—which is in the ample scope afforded by periodicals. A kind of literary pride has prevented my father from mingling in these; and, never having published anything anonymously, he feels disinclined to enter on a, to him, new career.

I feel persuaded that he would render his proposed ‘Lives of the Necromancers’ a deeply interesting and valuable work. There is a life and energy in his writings which always exalts them above those of his contemporaries. If this subject, which seems to me a fortunate one, does not please you, there are many others which would offer themselves, were he certain that you would accede to him and give him that encouragement which he has been accustomed hitherto to find. He had thought of the ‘Lives of the English Philosophers.’ I should certainly be glad that the publisher of Byron and Moore, and all the best writers, added the name of Godwin to the list; and if upon consideration you find that your views do not oppose an engagement with him, you will perhaps invite him to further communication on the subject.

Excuse my pressing this point, which, after all, must be decided by the laws of expediency; and, believe me,

Yours truly and obliged, Mary Shelley.

Mr. Godwin afterwards addressed Mr. Murray on the same subject, but failed to induce him to publish the ‘Lives of the Necromancers,’ though they appeared several years afterwards. It was his last work, written at the age of 78, but it was not well received, principally because of its irreligious character, an objection which Murray, notwithstanding his kindly feeling for Godwin, could not get over. Mrs. Shelley afterwards wrote to Mr. Murray thanking him for his kindness to her father.

Mrs. Shelley to John Murray.

“I am so unhappy that Sir C. Manners Sutton has lost his election as Speaker. It is not that I am not a Whig. I suppose I am one; but I think the Whigs have treated him most shabbily. They will never have such a Speaker again. I feel particularly kindly towards the Conservatives just now, as they have behaved with the greatest consideration towards my father, preserving him in his place, which was about to be abolished by the Whigs, and that in a manner as gracious as the deed. The Duke of Wellington, and above all the prince of our orators, Sir Robert Peel, deserve my gratitude, and have it.”

It appears that, towards the end of his life, William Godwin was appointed yeoman-usher to the Exchequer, and by the emoluments of that office he was in his latter days relieved from absolute want. He died in 1836.

A few words remain to be added respecting the statue of Lord Byron, which had been so splendidly executed by Thorwaldsen at Rome. Mr. Hobhouse wrote to Murray. “Thorwaldsen offers the completed work for £1000, together with a bas-relief for the pedestal, suitable for the subject of the monument.” The sculptor’s offer was accepted, and the statue was forwarded from Rome to London. Murray then applied to the Dean of Westminster, on behalf of the subscribers, requesting to know “upon what terms the statue now completed could be placed in some suitable spot in Westminster Abbey.” The Dean’s answer was as follows:

The Dean of Westminster to John Murray.

Deanery, Westminster, December 17th, 1834. Dear Sir,

I have not had the opportunity, till this morning, of consulting with the Chapter on the subject of your note. When you formerly applied to me for leave to inter the remains of Lord Byron within this Abbey, I stated to you the principle on which, as Churchmen, we were compelled to decline the proposal. The erection of a monument in honour of his memory which you now desire is, in its proportion, subject to the same objection. I do indeed greatly wish for a figure by Thorwaldsen here; but no taste ought to be indulged to the prejudice of a duty.

With my respectful compliments to the Committee, I beg you to believe me,

Yours truly, John Ireland.

The statue was for some time laid up in a shed on a Thames wharf. An attempt was made in the House of Commons to alter the decision of the Dean and Chapter, but it proved of no avail. “I would do my best,” said Mr. Hobhouse, “to prevail upon Sir Robert Peel to use his influence with the Dean. It is a national disgrace that the statue should lie neglected in a carrier’s warehouse, and it is so felt by men of all parties. I have had a formal application from Trinity College, Cambridge, for leave to place the monument in their great library, and it has been intimated to me that the French Government desire to have it for the Louvre.” The result was that the subscribers, in order to retain the statue in England, forwarded it to Trinity College, Cambridge, whose noble library it now adorns.

The only memorial to Byron in London is the contemptible leaning bronze statue in Apsley House Gardens, nearly opposite the statue of Achilles. Its pedestal is a block of Parian marble, presented by the Greek Government as a national tribute to the memory of Byron.

CHAPTER XXXI. BENJAMIN DISRAELI—THOMAS CARLYLE—SIR FRANCIS HEAD.

After the calamitous affair of the Representative, Mr. Murray saw but little of the Disraeli family, but at the commencement of 1830, Mr. Benjamin Disraeli once more applied to him for an interview. Mr. Disraeli had, in the meanwhile, appeared as an author. He visited Germany in his eighteenth year, and on his return he proceeded to write the novel of ‘Vivian Grey,’ the first two volumes of which were published in 1826, and the third in the following year. The work was well received, and is now regarded as, in some measure, a prediction of his own future life. Mr. Murray, however, in whose mind the former episode was still fresh, was unwilling to accede to this request, and replied in the third person.

John Murray to Mr. B. Disraeli.

“Mr. Murray is obliged to decline at present any personal interview; but if Mr. Benjamin Disraeli is disposed to confide his MS. to Mr. Murray as a man of business, Mr. Disraeli is assured that the proposal will be entertained in every respect with the strictest honour and impartiality.”

Mr. B. Disraeli to John Murray.

Union Hotel, Cockspur Street, 1830.

The object of my interview with you is purely literary. It has always been my wish, if it ever were my fate to write anything calculated to arrest public attention, that you should be the organ of introducing it to public notice. A letter I received this morning from my elected critic was the reason of my addressing myself to you.

I am sorry that Mr. Mitchell is out of town, because he is a person in whom you rightly have confidence; but from some observations he made to me the other day it is perhaps not to be regretted that he does not interfere in this business. As he has overrated some juvenile indiscretions of mine, I fear he is too friendly a critic.

I am thus explicit because I think that candour, for all reasons, is highly desirable. If you feel any inclination to pursue this affair, act as you like, and fix upon any critic you please. I have no objection to Mr. Lockhart, who is certainly an able one, and is, I believe, influenced by no undue partiality towards me.

At all events, this is an affair of no great importance—and whatever may be your determination, it will not change the feelings which, on my part, influenced this application. I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient Servant, Benj. Disraeli.

P.S.—I think it proper to observe that I cannot crudely deliver my MS. to any one. I must have the honour of seeing you or your critic. I shall keep this negotiation open for a couple of days—that is, I shall wait for your answer till Tuesday morning, although, from particular circumstances, time is important to me.

Mr. Disraeli was about to make a prolonged journey abroad. Before he set out he again wrote to Mr. Murray:

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Bradenham, Berks, May 27th, 1830. Sir,

I am unwilling to leave England, which I do on Saturday, without noticing your last communication, because I should regret very much if you were to misconceive the motives which actuated me in not complying with the suggestion therein contained. I can assure you I leave in perfect confidence both in your “honour” and your “impartiality,” for the first I have never doubted, and the second it is your interest to exercise.

The truth is, my friend and myself differed in the estimate of the MS. alluded to, and while I felt justified, from his opinion, in submitting it to your judgment, I felt it due to my own to explain verbally the contending views of the case, for reasons which must be obvious.

As you forced me to decide, I decided as I thought most prudently. The work is one which, I dare say, would neither disgrace you to publish, nor me to write; but it is not the kind of production which should recommence our connection, or be introduced to the world by the publisher of Byron and Anastasius.

I am now about to leave England for an indefinite, perhaps a long period. When I return, if I do return, I trust it will be in my power for the third time to endeavour that you should be the means of submitting my works to the public. For this I shall be ever ready to make great sacrifices, and let me therefore hope that when I next offer my volumes to your examination, like the Sibylline books, their inspiration may at length be recognized.

I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, B. Disraeli .

John Murray to Mr. Disraeli. May 29th, 1830.

“Mr. Murray acknowledges the receipt of Mr. Benjamin Disraeli’s polite letter of the 27th. Mr. Murray will be ready at all times to receive any MS. which Mr. B. Disraeli may think proper to confide to him. Mr. Murray hopes the result of Mr. Disraeli’s travels will complete the restoration of his health, and the gratification of his expectations.”

Nearly two years passed before Mr. Disraeli returned to England from those travels in Spain, the Mediterranean and the Levant, which are so admirably described in his ‘Home Letters,’* and which appear to have exercised so powerful an influence on his own character, and his subsequent career. Shortly after his return, he wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Bradenham House, Wycombe, February 10th, 1832. Sir,

I have at length completed a work which I wish to submit to your consideration. In so doing, I am influenced by the feelings I have already communicated to you. If you retain the wish expressed in a note which I received at Athens in the autumn of 1830, I shall have the honour of forwarding the MS. to you. Believe me, Sir, whatever may be the result,

Very cordially yours, Benj. Disraeli.

The MS. of the work was at once forwarded to Mr. Murray, who was, however, averse to publishing it without taking the advice of his friends. He first sent it to Mr. Lockhart, requesting him to read it and pronounce his opinion.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. March 3rd, 1832.

“I can’t say what ought to be done with this book. To me, knowing whose it is, it is full of interest; but the affectations and absurdities are such that I can’t but think they would disgust others more than the life and brilliancy of many of the descriptions would please them. You should send it to Milman without saying who is the author.—J. G. L.”

* ‘Home Letters,’ written by the late Earl of Beaconsfield in 1830 and 1831. London, 1885.

The MS. was accordingly sent to Mr. Milman, but as he was very ill at the time, and could not read it himself, but transferred it to his wife, much delay occurred in its perusal. Meanwhile, Mr. Disraeli became very impatient about the publication, and again wrote:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

March 4th, 1832. My Dear Sir,

I wish that I could simplify our arrangements by a stroke by making you a present of ‘The Psychological Romance’; but at present you must indeed take the will for the deed, although I hope the future will allow us to get on more swimmingly. That work has, in all probability, cost me more than I shall ever obtain by it, and indeed I may truly say that to write that work I have thrown to the winds all the obvious worldly prospects of life.

I am ready to make every possible sacrifice on my part to range myself under your colours. I will willingly give up the immediate and positive receipt of a large sum of money for the copyright, and by publishing the work anonymously renounce that certain sale which, as a successful, although I confess not very worthy author, I can command. But in quitting my present publisher, I incur, from the terms of our last agreement, a virtual penalty, which I have no means to pay excepting from the proceeds of my pen. Have you, therefore, any objection to advance me a sum on the anticipated profits of the edition, not exceeding two hundred pounds?

It grieves me much to appear exacting to you, but I frankly tell you the reason, and, as it will enable me to place myself at your disposal, I hope you will not consider me mercenary, when I am indeed influenced by the most sincere desire to meet your views.

If this modification of your arrangement will suit you, as I fervently trust it will, I shall be delighted to accede to your wishes. In that case let me know without loss of time, and pray let us meet to talk over minor points, as to the mode of publication, &c. I shall be at home all the morning; my time is very much occupied, and on Thursday or Friday I must run down, for a day or two, to Wycombe to attend a public meeting.*

Fervently trusting that this arrangement will meet your wishes,

Believe me, yours, Benj. Disraeli.

While the MS. was still in Mr. Milman’s hands, Mr. Disraeli followed this up with another letter:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

35 Duke Street, St. James’s. My Dear Sir,

I am very sensible that you have conducted yourself, with regard to my MS. in the most honourable, kind, and judicious manner; and I very much regret the result of your exertions, which neither of us deserve.

I can wait no longer. The delay is most injurious to me, and in every respect very annoying. I am therefore under the painful necessity of requesting you to require from your friend the return of my work without a moment’s delay, but I shall not deny myself the gratification of thanking you for your kindness and subscribing myself, with regard,

Your faithful Servant, Benj. Disraeli.

At length Mr. Milman’s letter arrived, expressing his judgment on the work, which was much more satisfactory than that of Mr. Lockhart.

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray.

Reading, March 5th, 1832. My dear Sir,

I have been utterly inefficient for the last week, in a state of almost complete blindness; but am now, I trust,

* Mr. Disraeli was then a candidate, on the Radical side, for the Borough of Wycombe.

nearly restored. Mrs. Milman, however, has read to me the whole of the MS. It is a very remarkable production—very wild, very extravagant, very German, very powerful, very poetical. It will, I think, be much read—as far as one dare predict anything of the capricious taste of the day—much admired, and much abused. It is much more in the Macaulay than in the Croker line, and the former is evidently in the ascendant. Some passages will startle the rigidly orthodox; the phrenologists will be in rapture. I tell you all this, that you may judge for yourself. One thing insist upon, if you publish it—that the title be changed. The whole beauty, of the latter part especially, is its truth. It is a rapid volume of travels, a ‘Childe Harold’ in prose; therefore do not let it be called “a Romance” on any account. Let those who will, believe it to be a real history, and those who are not taken in, dispute whether it is truth or fiction. If it makes any sensation, this will add to its notoriety ‘A Psychological Auto-Biography’ would be too sesquipedalian a title; but ‘My Life Psychologically Related,’ or ‘The Psychology of my Life,’ or some such title, might be substituted.

H. H. Milman.

Before Mr. Milman’s communication had been received, another pressing letter arrived from Mr. Disraeli.

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

My dear Sir,

It is with deep regret and some mortification that I appear to press you. It is of the highest importance to me that the ‘P. R.’ should appear without loss of time. I have an impending election in the country, which a single and not improbable event may precipitate. It is a great object with me, that my work should be published before that election.

Its rejection by you will only cause me sorrow. I have no desire that you should become its publisher, unless you conceive it may be the first of a series of works, which may support your name, and sustain your fortunes. There is no question of pecuniary matters between us; I leave all these with you, with illimitable trust.

Pray, pray, my dear Sir, do not let me repeat the feelings which impel me to seek this renewal of our connection. I entreat therefore your attention to this subject, and request that you will communicate your decision.

Believe me, as I have already said, that whatever that decision may be, I shall not the less consider myself,

Very cordially yours, B. Disraeli .

And again, in a subsequent letter, Mr. Disraeli said:—

“There is no work of fiction on whose character I could not decide in four-and-twenty hours, and your critic ought not to be less able than your author. Pray, therefore, to communicate without loss of time to your obedient faithful servant.

“B. D.”

On receiving Mr. Milman’s approval, Mr. Murray immediately made up his mind to publish the work. He wrote to Mr. Disraeli:—

John Murray to Mr. Disraeli.

March 6th, 1832. My Dear Sir,

Your MS. has this moment been returned to me, accompanied by a commendation which enables me to say that I should be proud of being its publisher. But in these times I am obliged to refrain from speculation, and I cannot offer any sum for it that is likely to be equal to its probable value.

I would, however, if it so please you, print at my expense an edition of 1200 or 1500 copies, and give you half the profits; and after the sale of this edition, the copyright shall be entirely your own; so that if the work prove as successful as I anticipate, you will ensure all the advantages of it without incurring any risque.

If this proposal should not suit you, I beg to add that I shall, for the handsome offer of your work in the first instance, still remain,

Your obedient Servant, John Murray .

Some further correspondence took place as to the title of the work. “What do you think,” said Mr. Disraeli, “of the ‘Psychological Memoir’? I hesitate between this and ‘Narrative,’ but discard ‘History’ or ‘Biography.’ On survey, I conceive the MS. will make four Byronic tomes, according to the pattern you were kind enough to show me.” The work was at length published in 4 vols., foolscap 8vo., with the title of ‘Contarini Fleming: a Psychological Biography.’

Before the appearance of the work, Mr. Disraeli wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Bradenham House, May 6th, 1832. Dear Sir,

From the notice of “C. F.” in the Literary Gazette, which I received this morning, I imagine that Jerdan has either bribed the printer, or purloined some sheets. It is evident that he has only seen the last volume. It is unnecessary for me to observe that such premature notice, written in such complete ignorance of the work, can do no good. I think that he should be reprimanded, and his petty larceny arrested. I shall be in town on Tuesday.

Yours, B. D.

The work, when it appeared in 1833, excited considerable sensation, and was very popular at the time of its publication. It is now included in the uniform edition of Lord Beaconsfield’s works.

During his travels in the East, Mr. Disraeli was attended by Lord Byron’s faithful gondolier, who had accompanied his master to Missolonghi, and remained with him till his death.

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Duke Street, July 5th, 1832. Dear Sir,

I have just returned to town, and will call in Albemarle Street as soon as I can. Tita, Lord Byron’s faithful servant, and who was also my travelling companion in the East, called upon me this morning. I thought you might wish to see one so intimately connected with the lost bard, and who is himself one of the most deserving creatures in the world.

Yours faithfully, B. Disraeli .

At the same time that Mr. Disraeli was engaged on his novel, he was busy with another, but this time a political work entitled ‘England and France: a Cure for the Ministerial Gallomania,’ dedicated to Lord Grey. The first letter on the subject—after Mr. Murray had agreed to publish the work—appears to have been the following, from Bradenham, Monday night, but without the date:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Dear Sir,

By to-morrow’s coach, at your desire, I send you one-half of the volume, which, however, is not in the finished state I could have wished. I have materials for any length, but it is desirable to get out without a moment’s loss of time. It has been suggested to publish a volume periodically, and let this come out as No. I; so as to establish a journal of general foreign politics, for which there are ample means of first-rate information. I have not been able even to revise what is sent, but it will sufficiently indicate the work.

I am to meet a personage on Thursday evening in town, and read over the whole to him. It is therefore absolutely necessary that the MS. should be returned to you on Thursday morning, and I will call in Albemarle Street the moment of my arrival, which will be about four o’clock. If in time, acknowledge the receipt by return of post.

The remaining portion of the volume consists of several more dramatic scenes in Paris, a view of the character and career of L. P.* a most curious chapter on the conduct of the Diplomatists, and a general view of the state of Europe at the moment of publication. Pray be cautious, and above all let me depend upon your having the MS. on Thursday, otherwise, as Liston says in ‘Love, Law and Physic,’ “we shall get all shot.”

B. D.

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Friday, 11 o’clock. My dear Sir,

I much regret that I missed you yesterday, but I called upon you the instant I arrived. I very much wish to talk over the ‘Gallomania,’ and will come on to you, if it be really impossible for you to pay me a visit. I have so much at this moment on my hands, that I should esteem such an incident, not only an honour, but a convenience.

B. D.

There seems to have been a difference of opinion between the author and the publisher respecting the title of the book:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Dear Sir,

I have a great respect for your judgment, especially on the subject of titles, as I have shown in another instance, one which I shall ever regret. In the present, I shall be happy to receive from you any suggestion, but I can offer none. To me the Gallomania (or mania for what is French) appears to be one of the most felicitous titles ever devised. It is comprehensive, it is explicit, it is poignant and intelligible, as I should suppose, to learned and unlearned. The word Anglomania is one of the commonest on the other side of the channel, is repeated daily in almost

* Louis Philippe.

every newspaper; has been the title of one or two works; and of the best farce in the French language. It is here also common and intelligible.

There is no objection to erasing the epithet “New,” if you think it loads the title.

Yours truly, B. D.

The three following letters were written on the same day:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Duke Street, March 30th, 1832. Dear Sir,

I am going to dine with Baron D’Haussez, Baron de Haber, et hoc genus, to-day, and must report progress, otherwise they will think I am trifling with them. Have you determined on a title? What think you of ‘A Cure for the Ministerial Gallomania,’ and advertise, dedicated to Lord Grey. Pray decide. You are aware I have not yet received a proof. Affairs look awkward in France. Beware lest we are a day after the fair, and only annalists instead of prophets.

Your very faithful Servant, B. Disraeli .

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

March 30th. Dear Sir,

I think it does very well, and I hope you are also satisfied. I shall send you the rest of the MS. to-morrow morning. There is a very remarkable chapter on Louis Philippe which is at present with Baron D’Haussez; and this is the reason I have not forwarded it to you. I keep the advertisement to show them.

B. D.

My dear Sir,

In further answer to your note received this evening, I think it proper to observe that I entirely agree with you that I “am bound to make as few alterations as possible,” coming as they do from such a quarter; and I have acted throughout in such a spirit. All alterations and omissions of consequence are in this first sheet, and I have retained in the others many things of which I do not approve, merely on account of my respect for the source from whence they are derived.

While you remind me of what I observed to your son, let me also remind you of the condition with which my permission was accompanied, viz.: that everything was to be submitted to my approval, and subject to my satisfaction. On this condition I have placed the proofs in the hands of several persons not less distinguished than your friend,* and superior even in rank and recent office. Their papers are on my table, and I shall be happy to show them to you, I will mention one: the chapter on Belgium was originally written by the Plenipotentiary of the King of Holland to the Conference, Baron Van Zuylen. Scarcely a line of the original composition remains, although a very able one, because it did not accord with the main design of the book.

With regard to the omission, pp. 12, 13, I acknowledge its felicity; but it is totally at variance with every other notice of M. de Talleyrand in the work, and entirely dissonant with the elaborate mention of him in the last chapter. When the reviser introduced this pungent remark, he had never even read the work he was revising.

With regard to the authorship of this work, I should never be ashamed of being considered the author. I should be proud to be; but I am not. It is written by Legion, but I am one of them, and I bear the responsibility. If it be supposed to be written by a Frenchman, all its good effects must be marred, as it seeks to command attention and interest by its purely British spirit.

I have no desire to thrust my acquaintance on your critic. More than once, I have had an opportunity to form that acquaintance, and more than once I have declined it, but I am ready to bear the brunt of explanation, if you desire me. It is quite impossible that anything adverse to the general measure of Reform can issue from my pen or from anything to which I contribute. Within these four months

* Mr. Croker, with Mr. B. Disraeli’s knowledge, revised the proofs.

I have declined being returned for a Tory borough, and almost within these four hours, to mention slight affairs, I have refused to inscribe myself a member of “The Conservative Club.” I cannot believe that you will place your critic’s feelings for a few erased passages against my permanent interest.

But in fact these have nothing to do with the question. To convenience you, I have no objection to wash my hands of the whole business, and put you in direct communication with my coadjutors. I can assure you that it is from no regard for my situation that Reform was omitted, but because they are of opinion that its notice would be unwise and injurious. For myself, I am ready to do anything that you can desire, except entirely change my position in life.

I will see your critic, if you please, or you can give up the publication and be reimbursed, which shall make no difference in our other affairs. All I ask in this and all other affairs, are candour and decision.

The present business is most pressing. At present I am writing a chapter on Poland from intelligence just received, and it will be ready for the printer to-morrow morning, as I shall finish it before I retire. I await your answer with anxiety.

Yours truly, B. D.

Mr. Disraeli was evidently intent upon the immediate publication of his work. On the following day he wrote again to Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

March 31st, 1832. My dear Sir,

We shall have an opportunity of submitting the work to Count Orloff to-morrow morning, in case you can let me have a set of the proofs to-night, I mean as far as we have gone. I do not like to send mine, which are covered with corrections.

Yours truly, B. D.

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

Monday morning, 9 o’clock [April 2], Dear Sir,

Since I had the honour of addressing you the note of last night, I have seen the Baron. Our interview was intended to have been a final one, and it was therefore absolutely necessary that I should apprize him of all that had happened, of course concealing the name of your friend. The Baron says that the insertion of the obnoxious passages is fatal to all his combinations; that he has devoted two months of the most valuable time to this affair, and that he must hold me personally responsible for the immediate fulfilment of my agreement, viz.: to ensure its publication when finished.

We dine at the same house to-day, and I have pledged myself to give him a categorical reply at that time, and to ensure its publication by some mode or other.

Under these principal circumstances, my dear sir, I can only state that the work must be published at once, and with the omission of all passages hostile to Reform; and that if you are unwilling to introduce it in that way, I request from your friendliness such assistance as you can afford me about the printer, &c., to occasion its immediate publication in some other quarter.

After what took place between myself and my coadjutor last night, I really can have for him only one answer or one alternative, and as I wish to give him the first, and ever avoid the second, I look forward with confidence to your answer.

B. D.

Mr. Disraeli next desires to have a set of the proofs to put into the hands of the Duke of Wellington:—

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

April 6th, 1832. My dear Sir,

I have just received a note, that if I can get a set of clean proofs by Sunday, they will be put in the Duke’s hands preliminary to the debate. I thought you would like to know this. Do you think it impossible? Let this be between us. I am sorry to give you all this trouble, but I know your zeal, and the interest you take in these affairs. I myself will never keep the printer, and engage when the proofs are sent me to prepare them for the press within an hour.

Yours, B. D.

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

My dear Sir,

I am very glad to receive the copy. I think that one should be sent to the editor of the Times as quickly as possible; that at least he should not be anticipated in the receipt, even if in the notice, by a Sunday paper. But I leave all this to your better judgment. You will send copies to Duke Street as soon as you have them.

B. D.

After the article in the Times had appeared, Baron de Haber, a mysterious German gentleman of Jewish extraction, who had taken part in the production of ‘Gallomania,’ wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Baron de Haber to John Murray.

2 Mai, 1832. Mon Cher Monsieur,

J’espère que vous serez content de l’article de Times sur la ‘Gallomania.’ C’est un grand pas de fait. Il serait utile que le Standard et le Morning Post le copie en entière, avec des observations dans son sens. C’est à vous, mon cher Monsieur Murray, de soigner cet objet. J’ai infiniment regretté de ne m’être pas trouvé chez moi hier, lorsque vous êtes venu me voir, avec l’aimable Mr. Lockhart.

Tout a vous, De H.

Baron de Haber to John Murray.

Vendredi. Mon Cher Monsieur Murray,

Vous désirez dans l’intérêt de l’ouvrage faire mentionner dans le Standard que le Times d’aujourd’hui paroît être assez d’accord avec l’auteur de la ‘Gallomania’ sur M. Thiers, esperant que de jour en jour il reviendra aux idées de cet auteur.

Il seroit aussi convenable de dire que la prophetic dans la lettre à My Lord Grey êtait assez juste: Allusion—“In less than a month we shall no doubt hear of their warm reception in the Provinces, and of some gratifying, perhaps startling, demonstrations of national gratitude.” Voyez, mon cher Monsieur, comme depuis 8 jours ces pauvres Députés qui ont vote pour le Ministre sont traités.

Si vous êtes à la maison ce soir, dites-le-moi, je dêsire vous parler. Dinez-vous chez-vous?

Votre dévoué, De H.

The following announcement was published by Mr. Disraeli in reply to certain criticisms of his work:—

“I cannot allow myself to omit certain observations of my able critic without remarking that those omissions are occasioned by no insensibility to their acuteness.

“Circumstances of paramount necessity render it quite impossible that anything can proceed from my pen hostile to the general question of Reform.

“Independent however of all personal considerations, and viewing the question of Reform for a moment in the light in which my critic evidently speculates, I would humbly suggest that the cause which he advocates would perhaps be more united in the present pages by being passed over in silence. It is important that this work should be a work not of party but of national interest, and I am induced to believe that a large class in this country, who think themselves bound to support the present administration from a superficial sympathy with their domestic measures, have long viewed their foreign policy with distrust and alarm.

“If the public are at length convinced that Foreign Policy, instead of being an abstract and isolated division of the national interests, is in fact the basis of our empire and present order, and that this basis shakes under the unskilful government of the Cabinet, the public may be induced to withdraw their confidence from that Cabinet altogether.

“With this exception, I have adopted all the additions and alterations that I have yet had the pleasure of seeing without reserve, and I seize this opportunity of expressing my sense of their justness and their value.

“The Author of ‘Gallomania.’”*

The next person whom we shall introduce to the reader was one who had but little in common with Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, except that, like him, he had at that time won but little of that world-wide renown which he was afterwards to achieve. This “writer of books,” as he described himself, was no other than Thomas Carlyle, who, when he made the acquaintance of Mr. Murray, had translated Goethe’s ‘Wilhelm Meister,’ written the ‘Life of Schiller,’ and several articles in the Reviews; but was not yet known as a literary man of mark. He was living among the bleak, bare moors of Dumfriesshire at Craigenputtock, where he was consoled at times by visits from Jeffrey and Emerson, and by letters from Goethe, where he wrote that strange and rhapsodical book ‘Sartor Resartus,’ containing a considerable portion of his own experience. After the MS. was nearly finished, he wrapt it in a piece of paper, put it in his pocket, and started for Dumfries, on his way to London.

Lord Jeffrey, then Lord Advocate, recommended Carlyle to try Murray, because, “in spite of its radicalism, he would be the better publisher.” Lord Jeffrey wrote to Mr. Murray on the subject, without mentioning Carlyle’s name:—

Lord Jeffrey to John Murray. May 1st, 1831.

“Lord Jeffrey understands that the earlier chapters of this work (which is the production of a friend of his) were

* Several references are made to ‘Contarini Fleming’ and ‘Gallomania’ in ‘Lord Beaconfield’s Letters to his Sister,’ published in 1887.

shown some months ago to Mr. Murray (or his reader), and were formally judged of; though, from its incomplete state, no proposal for its publication could then be entertained. What is now sent completes it; the earlier chapters being now under the final perusal of the author.

“Lord Jeffrey, who thinks highly of the author’s abilities, ventures to beg Mr. Murray to look at the MS. now left with him, and to give him, as soon as possible, his opinion as to its probable success on publication; and also to say whether he is willing to undertake it, and on what terms.”

Carlyle, who was himself at the time in London, called upon Mr. Murray, and left with him a portion of the manuscript, and an outline of the proposed volume.

Mr. Carlyle to John Murray.

6 Woburn Buildings, Tavistock Square, Wednesday, August 10th, 1831. Dear Sir,

I here send you the MS. concerning which I have, for the present, only to repeat my urgent request that no time may be lost in deciding on it. At latest, next Wednesday I shall wait upon you, to see what further, or whether anything further is to be done.

In the meanwhile, it is perhaps unnecessary to say, that the whole business is strictly confidential; the rather, as I wish to publish anonymously.

I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, Thomas Carlyle.

Be so kind as write, by the bearer, these two words. “MS. received.”

When Carlyle called a second time Murray was not at home, but he found that the parcel containing the MS. had not been opened. He again wrote to the publisher on the following Friday:—

Mr. Carlyle to John Murray.

Dear Sir,

As I am naturally very anxious to have this little business that lies between us off my hands—and, perhaps, a few minutes’ conversation would suffice to settle it all—I will again request, in case I should be so unlucky as to miss you in Albemarle Street, that you would have the goodness to appoint me a short meeting at any, the earliest, hour that suits your convenience.

I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, Thomas Carlyle.

This was followed up by a letter from Lord Jeffrey:—

Lord Jeffrey to John Murray.

Sunday, August 28th, 1831. My Dear Sir,

Will you favour me with a few minutes’ conversation, any morning of this week (the early part of it, if possible), on the subject of my friend Carlyle’s projected publication. I have looked a little into the MS. and can tell you something about it.

Believe me, always, very faithfully yours, F. Jeffrey.

The interview between Lord Jeffrey and Murray led to an offer for the MS.

Mr. Carlyle to John Murray.

Tuesday. Dear Sir,

I have seen the Lord Advocate [Jeffrey], who informs me that you are willing to print an edition of 750 copies of my MS., at your own cost, on the principle of what is called “half profits;” the copyright of the book after that to belong to myself.

I came down at present to say that, being very anxious to have you as a publisher, and to see my book put forth soon, I am ready to accede to these terms; and I should like much to meet you, or hear from you, at your earliest convenience, that the business might be actually put in motion. I much incline to think, in contrasting the character of my little speculation with the character of the times, that now (even in these months, say in November) were the best season for emitting it. Hoping soon to see all this pleasantly settled,

I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, Thomas Carlyle.

Mr. Murray was willing to undertake the risk of publishing 750 copies, and thus to allow the author to exhibit his literary wares to the public. Even if the whole edition had sold, the pecuniary results to both author and publisher would have been comparatively trifling, but as the copyright was to remain in the author’s possession, and he would have been able to make a much better bargain with the future editions, the terms may be considered very liberal, having regard to the exceptional nature of the work. Mr. Carlyle, however, who did not know the usual custom of publishers, had in the meantime taken away his MS. and offered it to other publishers in London, evidently to try whether he could not get a better bid for his book. Even Lord Jeffrey thought it “was too much of the nature of a rhapsody, to command success or respectful attention.” The publishers thought the same. Carlyle took the MS. to Fraser of Regent Street, who offered to publish it if Carlyle would give him a sum not exceeding £150 sterling. He had already been to Longmans & Co., offering them his ‘German Literary History,’ but they declined to publish the work, and he now offered them his ‘Sartor Resartus,’ with a similar result. He also tried Colburn and Bentley, but without success. When Murray, then at Ramsgate, heard that Carlyle had been offering his book to other publishers, he wrote to him:—

John Murray to Mr. Carlyle.

September 17th, 1831. Dear Sir,

Your conversation with me respecting the publication of your MS. led me to infer that you had given me the preference, and certainly not that you had already submitted it to the greatest publishers in London, who had declined to engage in it. Under these circumstances it will be necessary for me also to get it read by some literary friend, before I can, in justice to myself, engage in the printing of it.

I am, dear Sir, your faithful servant, John Murray .

Mr. Murray, accordingly, on his return to London, submitted the MS. to one of his literary advisers, probably Lockhart, whose reply was not very satisfactory. He thought it might be a translation. The work displayed, here and there, some felicity of thought and expression, with considerable fancy and knowledge, but whether or not it would take with the public seemed doubtful. Mr. Murray thought it better, in the circumstances, to return the MS. to Mr. Carlyle, and he wrote to him accordingly. Carlyle answered as follows:—

Mr. Carlyle to John Murray.

September 19th, 1831. Sir,

I am this moment favoured with your note of the 17th, and beg to say, in reply,—

First.—That your idea, derived from conversation with me, of my giving you the preference to all other Publishers, was perfectly correct. I had heard you described as a man of honour, frankness, and even generosity, and knew you to have the best and widest connexions; on which grounds, I might well say, and can still well say, that a transaction with you would please me better than a similar one with any other member of the Trade.

Secondly.—That your information, of my having submitted my MS. to the greatest publishers in London, if you mean that, after coming out of your hands, it lay two days in those of Messrs. Longman and Rees, and was from them delivered over to the Lord Advocate, is also perfectly correct: if you mean anything else, incorrect.

Thirdly.—That if you wish the Bargain, which I had understood myself to have made with you, unmade, you have only to cause your Printer, who is now working on my MS., to return the same, without damage or delay, and consider the business as finished.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, Thomas Carlyle.

As Mr. Carlyle was unwilling to entertain the idea of taking his manuscript home with him, and none of the other publishers would accept it, he urgently requested Mr. Murray again to examine it, and come to some further decision. “While I, with great readiness,” he said, “admit your views, and shall cheerfully release you from all engagement, or shadow of engagement, with me in regard to it: the rather, as it seems reasonable for me to expect some higher remuneration for a work that has cost me so much effort, were it once fairly examined, such remuneration as was talked of between us can, I believe, at all times be procured.” He then proposed “a quite new negotiation, if you incline to enter on such;” and requested his decision. “If not, pray have the goodness to cause my papers to be returned with the least possible delay.” The MS. was at once returned; and Carlyle acknowledged its receipt:—

Mr. Carlyle to John Murray.

October 6th, 1831. My Dear Sir,

I have received the MS., with your note and your friend’s criticism, and I find it all safe and right. In conclusion, allow me to thank you for your punctuality and courtesy in this part of the business; and to join cordially in the hope you express that, in some fitter case, a closer relation may arise between us.

I remain, my dear Sir, faithfully yours, T. Carlyle.

Mr. Carlyle returned to Craigenputtock with his manuscript in his pocket; very much annoyed and disgusted by the treatment of the London publishers. Shortly after his arrival at home, he wrote to Mr. Macvey Napier, then editor of the Edinburgh Review:—

“All manner of perplexities have occurred in the publishing of my poor book, which perplexities I could only cut asunder, not unloose; so the MS., like an unhappy ghost, still lingers on the wrong side of Styx: the Charon of Albemarle Street durst not risk it in his sutilis cymba, so it leaped ashore again. Better days are coming, and new trials will end more happily.”

A little later (6th Feb. 1832) he said:—

“I have given up the notion of hawking my little manuscript book about any further. For a long time it has lain quiet in its drawer, waiting for a better day. The bookselling trade seems on the edge of dissolution; the force of puffing can go no further; yet bankruptcy clamours at every door: sad fate! to serve the Devil, and get no wages even from him! The poor bookseller Guild, I often predict to myself, will ere long be found unfit for the strange part it now plays in our European World; and give place to new and higher arrangements, of which the coming shadows are already becoming visible.”

The ‘Sartor Resartus’ was not, however, lost. Two years after Carlyle’s visit to London, it came out, bit by bit, in Fraser’s Magazine. Through the influence of Emerson, it was issued, as a book, at Boston, in the United States, and Carlyle got some money for his production. It was eventually published in England, and, strange to say, has had the largest sale in the ‘People’s Edition of Carlyle’s Works,’ Carlyle, himself, created the taste to appreciate ‘Sartor Resartus.’

It is a striking contrast to pass from Carlyle the recluse, with all his Scottish keenness for driving a bargain, to the lively and spirited man of the world, Captain F. B. Head, who was not addicted to haggling over a price. His first book had proved a success, and had given him that encouragement which to a man of versatile and ready wit is an irresistible incentive to further literary efforts. Some authors, like Hope, with his ‘Anastasius,’ and Beckford, with his ‘Vathek,’ stop with their first novel, and never write another; but Head went on writing, because he felt compelled to write. He was, indeed, at home on most subjects: from Rapid Rides across the Pampas, to Stokers and Pokers on a Railway; from Mining to Waterloo;* from the Red Man to the Printer’s Devil; from Steam to to Electricity and the Post Office; from governing Paupers to governing a Province. He was a man full of humour and of immense vitality. Once he wrote to Mr. Murray:—“I dined yesterday with Lord Clarendon, and drank one pint of wine; but I must have eaten a part of the Devil’s hind leg, for such a night as I passed it is impossible to tell you—as it was, I could not leave home to-day until 2; but when I called, you had just gone out. I will be with you to-morrow at 12 precisely.”

When one of his books was passing through the press, Clowes, the printer, wrote to Murray:—“Major Head is here, with his dressing gown on, and will not leave before all is ready for press, which will not, I think, be the case before 6 in the morning.” To save time he had gone

* Captain Head had been engaged in the Campaign of 1815, but was not present at the battle of Waterloo.

down prepared to spend the night in the office, while the printers were at work.

Before he had completed his ‘Life of Bruce,’ he proposed to visit Ireland, to observe the condition of the people. He asked Murray to give him 200 guineas for his MS., without reference to its size, and 100 guineas for his expenses. With these conditions Murray at once complied. His object in going to Ireland will be best explained by his own letter:—

Captain Head, R.E., to John Murray.

“It is little use my repeating to you what I said about Ireland; for I believe we fully agree that the Irish philosophers have sent us their speculations, the Irish members have advocated their own interests, the common people have sent us and still send us an Irish howl of mutiny and discontent, though England—and we may almost say Europe—has been occupied by a religious controversy (Irish emancipation) which has but just been settled; yet we have been reckoning, as it were, without our host; we have been arguing in the dark: for I do maintain that we have not seen Ireland, and that we have no book which, veluti in speculum, reflects a picture sufficiently correct to inform us of the real state of ‘that undiscovered country’ from which statesmen, orators, heroes, &c., have occasionally fallen upon Old England, like the stones which are said to arrive here from unknown regions in the moon . . . The rich man’s house in Ireland, I believe, will be open to me; the poor man’s hut is open to us all; and out of these two dwellings I would try to steal a moral.”

Captain, now Major Head, started for Ireland in 1830; but he had scarcely reached Cork ere he was recalled to England, at once, upon business. It was not until twenty years had passed that he was able to accomplish his observations and inquiry into the state of Ireland.

In 1832, he proposed a fresh subject to Mr. Murray—no other than the humorous sketches entitled ‘Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau.’ After a conversation with Mr. Murray, he sent him the following note:—

Major Head to John Murray.

Sutton, May 31st, 1832. Dear Sir,

I send you, only for your own private perusal, almost all the Notes I have by me, which are written out. I have a very few more, but they are in hieroglyphics, which you would find it impossible to decipher. Whether or not these notes are likely to suit the appetite of the great, big, chuckle-headed public, you are best able to determine; but I think I may say that your own domestic circle would not condemn them. It is of no use talking to you about terms, until I hear from you.

Yours, very sincerely, F. B. Head.

A few months passed before Major Head had written out his hieroglyphics; and when he had finished, and had an interview with Murray, he wrote to him again:—

Major Head to John Murray.

Sutton, October 9th, 1832. My Dear Sir,

Although you agreed this morning to the proposal I made to you, yet, lest I should unintentionally have proposed to you more than I can perform, I think it better more deliberately to explain to you what it is I have to publish.

I have been living at Langenschwalbach and at Schlan- genbad, two very celebrated bathing places in the mountainous Duchy of Nassau. The former place alone was visited this season by about two thousand people of rank or respectability; and the place is, I assure you, known all over Germany, although even its name has probably never yet reached your ears. I was in these mountains about three months, and not having a single book to read, I was obliged to occupy my time in endeavouring to make one. For this purpose, instead of writing to my friends, I described whatever I saw (which I thought would interest the general reader) to an imaginary correspondent; and, instead of dispatching these letters, I kept them in my portfolio. My observations are neither deep nor learned: but they describe the homely manners and habits which I witnessed; and to show you how low they descend, I enclose you, as a specimen, the rough copy of the letter which describes the pigs of Langenschwalbach.

These letters, together with the sketches of the battle of Waterloo, my travelling from Rome with a nun, &c., which you read before I left England, I would embody in a volume which would be as large, or nearly so, as my ‘Rough Notes.’*

If it would suit you to publish this volume, or, in other words, to purchase the MS., I should require for it the sum of two hundred guineas; and the only favour I have to ask of you is, to return me the enclosed letter with your answer, with as little delay as possible; for, as the hunting is about to begin, I do not wish to exist in the piebald capacity of half-huntsman half author; or, in other words, to be half a stag hunter and half a bookseller’s hack.

Yours, my dear Sir, very sincerely, F. B. Head.

Mr. Murray at once agreed to Major Head’s proposals, The MS. was sent to press, and the book was published anonymously in 1833.

On the appearance of a new edition of this book, he wrote to Murray:—

Major Head to John Murray.

My Dear Sir,

I was very glad to hear, the other day, that you are going to blow another edition of your ‘Bubbles.’ Your son, however, told me that you were thinking of leaving out the pictures. Our friend, Miss Burges, whose per-

* ‘Rough Notes of some Rapid Journeys across the Pampas.’ (See p. 253.)

formances they are, does not at all like the divorce. She seems to think it is as cruel as the separation of man and wife in the new workhouses; and that as the letterpress and pictures were joined together in holy matrimony at your altar; and as they have “climbed the hill together,” she thinks they ought “to sleep together at the foot, John Anderson, my Jo.”

The mention of workhouses in the preceding letter is an allusion to a subject in which Major Head took a deep interest, and in the course of the following year he was appointed Assistant Commissioner of the Poor Laws. He was stationed in Kent, and wrote to Murray from Sittingbourne as to the working of the Poor Law. He said:—

Major Head to John Murray. December 31st, 1834.

“I am getting on here, in my new trade, very prosperously. Yesterday I had a separate interview with the overseers of sixteen parishes; and every one of them, in reply to my questions, confessed that the pauper in their parishes is not only infinitely better fed than any independent labourer, but that he is much better fed than many of the ratepayers who subscribe to fatten him! In fact, both the independent labourer and small ratepayer have pauperism above instead of below them. Under such a system, of course, every sensible labourer feels that he ought to be a pauper; and, as he is entitled to a reward for every child he has, of course he fiddles while his Rome is burning. Such a system would never be credited by beings of any reflection at all; but the old squire, red in the face, sits grunting in his chair, and wondering why his Poor Rates increase.

“I have just come from the island of Sheppey, and if you should ever feel an itch (before you leave Albemarle Street for ever) to know what’s done in hell, allow me to advise you to do, as I have done, spend three days at Sheerness. The town is six feet below the level of the sea; and if the ocean had any feelings of morality, it would upset the mud wall, and smother the whole apparatus of love and gin which is beneath it.”

One of the results of his appointment as Poor Law Commissioner was that, at the request of Mr. Murray and Mr. Lockhart, he wrote an article in No. 106 of the Quarterly Review on the crowning abuses of the existing system. But he warned Mr. Murray about the proposed article:—

Major Head to John Murray. January 20th, 1835.

“I do not know whether I should have time to write the article, but if I had, I do think I could write a very short article about philanthropy (for one is tired of the words ‘Poor Laws’) which should be new and true. The only thing is, would it suit, do you think, the Q. R.? I know you to be a very liberal-minded man, and so, to a very high degree, is Mr. Lockhart; but I am sensible you have difficulty in pleasing as well as in instructing your readers, and that you don’t wish to offend them. One thing, as your friend, I can tell you, which is, that the Poor Law Bill is as sure to beat the Press as your mind would be to open an oyster; and therefore, as your friend, I would say, join and lead the winners. However, of this, judge for yourself.”

When Murray told him of the insertion of the article in the Quarterly, Head wrote (30 April, 1835):—

“I am pleased to hear that our pauper bairn is beginning to run alone. You know we agreed together in your little den, that we would try and produce an article that should make the London ladies read, and reading, scratch; by your account, it seems they are doing both.”

The interest aroused by the ‘Bubbles’ induced Mr. Murray to spend his summer holiday in 1835 in following in the footsteps of the “Old Man,” and paying a visit to the German watering-places which Head had so humorously described. In the middle of July he asked the Major for some information on the subject, and received the following reply:—

Major Head to John Murray. July 20th, 1835.

“I should like to have spent an evening with you, before you set out for your visit to Langenschwalbach; but it is impossible; I have not a moment. My boys are there, as also my sister. I believe the waters will tinker you up in a most extraordinary manner, if you will but be sensible about them. Mind, go and hear the Jews perform their service on the Friday evening, and think of me when they begin to halloo. Go and hear the great, big, tall, lusty, pale Protestant minister preach. Search out the Schwein-General, and if his pigs’ bellies are tucked up—think of me. Watch old Dr. Fenner as he stalks up and down the promenade, and you will see what attitudes he will throw himself into. Observe the German ladies eating salad, and, when we meet, tell me if they don’t do it just like cows eating cabbage. Try (and let me know) if they don’t say Ya! Ya! to everything. Buy some cherries of the women you will see sitting under the eaves of the ‘Goldene Kette’—eat some while you are drinking the mineral waters, and observe whether they don’t make you run home at a canter.”

Leaving Mrs. Murray for a time at Schwalbach, Mr. Murray made a short excursion in order to be present at the great meeting of the German Association of Naturalists at Bonn, whence he wrote to his wife.

John Murray to Mrs. Murray.

Bonn, Aug., 1835.

I arrived here at 3 o’clock yesterday, having passed through the most beautiful parts of the Rhine land. A passenger came on board at Coblentz who spoke English well, and told me about the Bonn meeting—very agreeable. Just as we were preparing to quit the boat he came and said: “Are you Mr. John Murray?” “Yes.” “Well, you were very kind to a relation of mine, Mr. Nebel, who gave you a letter of introduction to me at Coblentz, which you never delivered; he has since returned, and is now at Bonn. Upon enquiry I found that you had sent your courier to cash one of your drafts upon me. Well, if I can render you any service at Bonn, where I am going until Friday, I shall be most happy.” So he saw to my luggage, and we went together to a new inn, H. de Treves.

I was much amused with my first experience of a public dinner in Germany—their toasts, &c. The ladies stayed the whole time, and drank plentifully of champagne; one of them was pointed out as having taken no less than fourteen glasses! I sat near Mr. Nebel at dinner, who is very anxious to show me attention. This morning, after breakfast, I accompanied Torrie* to the General Meeting, where there were 500 gentlemen, and probably as many ladies, who had a kind of orchestra set apart for them behind the men. Every one has a number given him, and a chair with a corresponding number, so there was no disorder. As the meeting to-day was only for the receipt of communications in German, as soon as I had satisfied my eyes I came home to write. Mr. Hersser, Mr. and Mrs. Lyell, &c., were there. Mrs. Buckland is with the Professor, and is the only lady who is to accompany the expedition to-morrow, it being on their route to some other place. Torrie has just been here, and says that the party will consist of fifty gentlemen, chiefly geologists, who are to set out at 6 to-morrow in caravans for a certain distance, and are then to proceed in lighter carriages. Those who carry hammers are to walk. We sleep to-morrow at Ahrweiler; the next day, Sunday, proceed to the gardens of some prince, who gives a dinner to the whole party, and we return in the evening to Bonn. I am now going with Torrie to dine with the same party as yesterday, but at I o’clock instead of 2, to give us more time to make out an excursion afterwards to a beautiful little watering-place, of which a tower is seen on the Rhine opposite Drachenfels, called (oh for mine book!) Godesberg.

P.S.—Provokingly the dinner hour has been changed to 2, and I now write a P.S. in a saloon appropriated to the exhibition of Mr. Nebel’s drawings.

P.P.S.—Buckland has just risen to speak; applause from the assembled Society of 300 Germans.

* A Scottish friend of Murray’s son.

Mr. Murray remained at the water-drinking village for the usual time, and returned home all the better for the change. On hearing of his arrival, Head wrote to him:—

Major Head to John Murray.

November 19th, 1835. My Dear Sir,

Welcome back to England! A piece of our roast beef, with a bottle of good strong wine at one’s elbow, is after all as good as German veal, six days old, and sour Rhein-wine.—Isn’t it? I hear you were glad to leave Langenschwalbach. It is tiresome to be drinking water all day long for six weeks; but, my dear friend, it strengthens the stomach, and makes it hold more, which is a great blessing!

They tell me you have actually managed to bring home in triumph the Schwein-General’s pig-whip!* You shall hear me smack it some day in Albemarle Street, and if I live to attend your funeral, I will ask your son (instead of a sermon) to crack it twenty or thirty times over your grave. It would frighten the worms away from you for months. You ought immediately to invite to dinner all the literary men in London, on purpose to let ’em hear me crack that whip. None of your Quarterly Review writers can hit like it—their subjects want its handle—their arguments its weight—their satire its iron lash—their wit its point. Give me but that whip, I say, and let them choose any subject they like, and I will lick ’em and drive ’em before me like a herd of swine. It could conquer every man in London, and most seriously do I congratulate you on the possession of this Herculean tool.

Yours ever, F. B. H.

P.S.—I shall have finished with this county in about a month.

While busy with his duties as Poor Law Commissioner in Kent, Head received a summons at midnight from Lord

* This whip is still in the possession of Mr. Murray.

Glenelg, then Colonial Minister, requiring his immediate attendance in London. On his arrival, he waited on the minister, who thereupon offered him the appointment of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, which he reluctantly accepted. There was at that time much dissatisfaction in Canada, and differences occurred between the Lieutenant-Governor (then Sir John Colborne) and the Colonial Secretary as to the measures which ought to be adopted for allaying the turmoil. Major Head had already made his mark in England, and it was thought that, with his shrewdness, common sense, and knowledge of men and their ways, he might be able to quench the growing embers of discontent. The following are the letters from Major Head,—who was created a Baronet in 1837,—to Mr. Murray during his stay in Upper Canada.

Major Head to John Murray.

Toronto, April 27th, 1836. My dear Sir,

I am playing a game here, in which I am king, and all the rest of the cards knaves; and yet I believe I have at last managed to trump them, but it is hard work. I wish I was a bookseller in Albemarle Street, and you here. I have seen much since I left you, and if I had but time to mix up my soap and water, I think I could blow you some bubbles as big as balloons. But I am restless and itching for want of my family.

I send you a copy of my speech on proroguing this Provincial Legislature. It is, as you will perceive, rather a lengthy one, but when once I managed to open my mouth, like Balaam’s ass, it came out quite easy. I wish you could get it inserted in the London newspapers, as it will explain in England the difficulties I have had to contend with.

This is a fine country, if we could but get it quiet, in which I have really nearly succeeded by upsetting the radicals. It is a fine place for emigrants, for men coming out here have everything to gain. The more children one has here, the better, and if you want more, come here.

Toronto, June 22nd, 1836.

I am now in the midst of my elections, and I may truly say the Canadians are intensely watching the conflict. Both parties are desperate, because they know they are each fighting for life or death. I believe we shall lick the radicals, and if so, the victory will be a permanent one. . . . The fact is, the battle I am fighting here is the cause of old England, and I want to stir people up at home to their interests, which they have sadly neglected.

I often think of you, and wish you were here. Dear me, what a deal of wine I would give you.

Toronto, August 20th, 1836.

I have just returned from a tour or voyage on Lake Huron. . . . I had a special meeting of the Indians at the great Manalouli Island. I had some important business to transact with them, and we had a grand council. They appointed their best orator to reply to me. The fellow’s name was Segonal (the Black-bird), and he was celebrated for having often on grand public occasions spoken without once stopping, from Sunrise to Sunset. Is not this being what’s called “a powerful speaker?” I often thought of you, and wished I could have produced you. The Indians never saw a book; never heard of a bookseller; and would have worshipped you as the Cacique of that tribe.

God bless you! F. B. Head.

Government House, Toronto, October 12th, 1836. My dear Sir,

Your handwriting always gives me pleasure, for it is like touching the finger of an old friend. I am much obliged to you for all the information you have given me. I am going on here quite quietly, and can assure you the struggle is completely over. The people are loyal (and to tell the real truth), more so than in England; but a few Radicals had been allowed to deceive them. With these fellows I found it necessary to have the same sort of row-royal that the new police, on its first formation, had with the London pickpockets. I managed to lick them, and, having once turned tail, they will never stand again.

Our success in this province made Papineau desperate, and I always prophesied that he would break, and not bend. He has done so, and, in my opinion, the game is completely up. All that is necessary here is, not to be afraid to tell the people the truth, for you can’t conceive with what avidity they feed upon it. I have just been over the whole province. On entering each township a number of people generally met me on horseback, as a guard of honour; but before we reached the principal towns they were generally an hour, and sometimes two hours behind me, and you cannot conceive how the Radicals have been upset by being totally unable to keep up with me. I have gained more popularity by riding fast over their own corduroy roads, and their own rickety bridges, than if I had preached to them on Political Economy for a year. Depend upon it, that the British Constitution has nothing to fear from the Canadas, and it is my opinion that we shall support rather than undermine it. There is nothing to fear from the example of the United States. We will show them the road yet.

Yours in haste, my dear Sir, very sincerely, F. B. Head.

Notwithstanding the confident hope expressed in these letters, Head’s difficulties in Upper Canada were not “completely over,” as he stated to Murray, but were only about to begin. Both Upper and Lower Canada were in a state of extreme political excitement. The Assembly of the Lower Province, under the leadership of Papineau, stopped the supplies for the payment of official salaries in 1833, and the Assembly of the Upper Province followed their example in 1836. Lower Canada, the population of which was mainly French, required that the Legislative Council should be made elective; while Upper Canada the inhabitants of which were English, required that the Executive Council should be made responsible to the Assembly. The Government at home, at the instance of Lord John Russell, opposed the Canadians, and treated their requests in a despotic manner. The Canadians were roused by this treatment; a meeting of the six counties was held at St. Charles, Lower Canada, to protest against the threats of the English Parliament to annihilate the fundamental laws of the colony, whereupon the Lower Canadians proceeded to take up arms, and a rebellion broke out.

The Earl of Gosford having resigned his position as Governor-General, and gone home, was superseded by Sir John Colborne as Military Governor. Sir Francis Head sent him all the troops under his command, and trusted entirely to the militia, and the loyalty of the majority of the people, for the defence of his own province. His conduct has been called Quixotic, but in this instance it was successful. The rebellion in Lower Canada was soon suppressed, but in December 1837, an unsuccessful attempt was made to seize the city of Toronto, Upper Canada. Shortly after, on the 29th of December, Colonel Macnab attacked and defeated the rebels on Navy Island, on the River Niagara; after which he seized the steamer Caroline, which had been engaged in carrying supplies of arms and ammunition across the river into Upper Canada, set her on fire, and sent her down the river and over the falls. The last letter received by Mr. Murray from Sir Francis Head, while in Canada, was as follows:—

Sir Francis Head to John Murray.

January 26th, 1838. My dear Sir,

I send you an early copy of the printed documents, with my letter to the Ministers at Washington, respecting the burning of the Caroline, which, in flames, went over the Cataract of Niagara. I hope soon to see you.

F. B. Head.

In fact, Head’s reign was over. He did not agree with the Ministers at home, nor they with him, and accordingly, towards the end of 1837, he resigned his office of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, and made all haste to return to London. The Earl of Durham was immediately after appointed Governor-General and High Commissioner for the adjustment of the affairs of the provinces of Lower and Upper Canada. Sir Francis Head had still a word, or rather many words, to say for himself respecting his government of Upper Canada, and before his return to England he requested that his ‘Vindication’ might be sent to the Times. It was accordingly forwarded with a note from Murray to the Editor, Mr. Barnes, with whom he was personally acquainted:—

Mr. Barnes to John Murray.

February 1st, 1838. My dear Sir,

I have received both your letters. The interest of the past proceedings in Upper Canada is quite merged in that of more recent occurrences; so that the accompanying statement would at this moment hardly find a reader. Head, with all his talent, decision, and courage, is very conceited and injudicious. The admission to which you refer is perfectly absurd, and, as you say, completely contradicted by the whole tenor of the letter. Head seems a man born to get into scrapes and to get out of them again; but however amusing the spectacle of his active ingenuity in repairing his own blunders may be to others, the process cannot be very advantageous to his own reputation or welfare. He has, however, so many fine qualities, that it is a duty to stand by him as long as possible.

Yours very truly, J. Barnes.

There was considerable discussion in Parliament respecting the mal-administration of Canada, Mr. Roebuck being heard at the bar of the House of Lords against the Canadian Bill, in one of his most eloquent speeches. In the same year (1838) Sir Francis Head published his ‘Narrative’—followed by a supplementary chapter—in defence of his Canadian administration. When requesting Mr. Murray to send his ‘Vindication’ to the Times, he wrote as follows:—

Sir Francis Head to John Murray.

Holland House, June 3rd, 1838. My dear Sir,

I look upon you as one of perhaps the most faithful friends I possess, and I therefore feel I cannot do better than follow your advice and thank you for it. I will not therefore trouble the Times to produce my letters, but thank Mr. Barnes for his civility.

Yours sincerely, F. B. Head.

The Quarterly was always open to Sir Francis, whose quickness, versatility, and keenness of observation were never at a loss for a good subject. An entirely new one was now suggested to him—that of Roads and Railroads. He wrote to Mr. Murray:—

Sir Francis Head to John Murray.

Barford, Warwick, September 9th, 1838. My dear Sir,

I enclose you two letters I have received from Colonel Burgoyne (who belongs to the Corps of Royal Engineers, and who for many years has been Head Commissioner for the expenditure of the grant for public works in Ireland), by which you will see that he and Mr. Drummond (who is Under Secretary for Ireland) wish me to review their report on railroads . . . If I were to attempt it, I should throw aside, for the sake of science, all my own angry feelings towards the Government, and endeavour to give an impartial judgment on an important subject.

God bless you, my dear Sir. I hope you often walk about Pope’s Villa, cracking my pig-whip; and that you have not altogether forgotten,

My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, F. B. Head.

The result was an article for the Quarterly (No. 125), entitled ‘Locomotion by Steam, or Railroads for Ireland.’ While the article was in progress, he wrote to Mr. Murray for a quantity of books:—

Sir F. B. Head to John Murray.

“I am getting on with my article. The last quarter of a hundredweight of books you sent me I have not yet opened, for as my head is about as full of the subject as it will hold, I thought, instead of bursting the boiler, I had better get through my journey with the steam I had. As soon as I have finished it, I will overhaul what you have been good enough to send me; and I can then add or subtract as I may see reason.”

He continued to have his head full of Canada, and sent Mr. Murray many letters about Lord Durham while he remained Governor-General. An article appeared in the next number of the Quarterly, No. 126, on Head’s Narrative and Lord Durham’s Report.

Sir Francis Head to John Murray. Atherton, January 4th, 1839.

“I thought I had skinned poor Lord Durham, but I find you have peppered and grilled him. He really is a fallen angel, or rather he has no more feathers in his wings than a young rook. It is well, however, that he is safe at home with us, for he would have done irreparable mischief had he remained at Quebec.”

He followed this up by another article in the Quarterly, No. 128, entitled ‘British Policy—a Strange Story.’ In the succeeding numbers of the Review he wrote articles on two entirely different subjects—‘The Printer’s Devil,’ and the ‘Red Man in Canada and North America’—the last a review of Catlin’s work.

The subject of Sir Francis’s administration in Canada again came up in the House of Commons. He wrote to Murray:—

Sir Francis Head to John Murray.

February 7th, 1839. Dear Sir,

I have just received private intimation that my despatches will be called for immediately, and obtained vi et armis. Send for Clowes and get ready. “Lay on Macduff, and curst be he who first cries hold, enough!”

F. B. H.

Head’s ‘Narrative of his Administration in Upper Canada,’ went through three editions in the course of the year. “I was glad,” he said, “to hear the child’s voice crying in the Times this morning. The extract was the very best that could be given to create an appetite.”

Sir Francis Head to John Murray. March 5th, 1839.

“You say you cannot account for the Times being so lukewarm. I can. It has never forgiven me (and it never will) the article I wrote on ‘English Charity.’ Whenever the Times has been forced to oppose me it has done so with its usual talent and power; but depend upon it that my Poor Law Memorandum manet alia mente repostum. What is most extraordinary is the article in my favour which lately appeared in the Globe. That paper, after defending me, says that my ‘Narrative’ will be a ‘useful appendix to Lord Durham’s Report’—a butcher’s knife sticking in a pig’s throat might just as much be called ‘a useful appendix.’”

Sir Francis Head to John Murray.

Atherton, April 1st, 1839.

I cannot help thanking you for having sent us such a shower of Quarterly Reviews. My Hens are quite delighted at the review of my ‘Narrative,’ and chuckle with great pride. Although I cannot presume to crow on the occasion, yet I may tell you that I feel deeply gratified at the view that has been taken of my services. It will render me a service at a moment I require it. It is certainly not only kindly but very ably done.* It not only hits the Ministers very hard, but it tickles them so, that it will, I think, make them laugh out of the wrong sides of their mouths, while the public will laugh at them out of the other. I think of coming to London to-morrow, if so, you will see me.

Yours in haste, Very sincerely, F. B. Head.

* The article in No. 126, entitled ‘Colonial Government—Head’s Narrative—Lord Durham’s Report,’ was written by Croker.

CHAPTER XXXII. VARIOUS AUTHORS’ CORRESPONDENCE—LOCKHART AND CROKER—JOHN DOUGLAS COOK—SAMUEL WARREN—SOUTHEY’S PENSION—CHARLES LYELL.

It would be tedious and unprofitable to give a mere list of the works offered to Mr. Murray even by authors of recognised repute, save in cases where the negociation was attended by some special incident or correspondence which might appear worthy of record. The burst of inspiration which had marked the commencement of the present century had all but died out, and the public demand for poetry, as well as the quality of the supply, had waned. From this time forward we find Mr. Murray making it his rule to refuse all original works of this kind, and when Henry Taylor offered him his ‘Philip van Artevelde,’ the drama by which he established his reputation, Mr. Murray, mindful of the ill-success of ‘Isaac Comnenus,’ declined the proposal. In the department of fiction, too, the quality of the MSS. submitted was so disproportionate to the quantity, that few of them found favour in Albemarle Street. Mr. G. P. R. James, historian and novelist, had some correspondence with Mr. Murray, and on one occasion described his method of composition, though he did not succeed in getting any of his books accepted:

Mr. G. P. R. James to John Murray.

“I have said that I write very rapidly, and when I tell you that this often amounts to twenty-four pages in four or five hours, you may perhaps think that such speed is incompatible with care; but I can assure you I find by experience that when my pen moves thus fluently—before the ideas that flash across my mind have time to escape—the sheets may want correction afterwards—but in point of spirit and interest they are always far more to my satisfaction than when I proceed slowly.”

Mrs. Sarah Austin’s literary career, including her dealings with Mr. Murray, have been so well described by her grand-daughter in the ‘Lives of Three Englishwomen,’ that it would be superfluous to do more than mention her name here.

Among a host of letters from more or less distinguished authors, we insert the following as forming an interesting link between Mr. Murray’s generation and that of his father:—

Professor Leslie to John Murray.

Edinburgh, November 19th, 1830.

I was very sorry not to have the pleasure of seeing you when you visited this place last autumn. I was then in Fife, where I should have been most happy to receive a visit from you; and indeed had I known you were to stay so long in Edinburgh, I should have crossed the water to meet you.

I lately purchased a small but beautiful property on the reef of Largs Bay, and have been labouring earnestly in improving and decorating it. Things are succeeding to my wishes: but then I have laid out a great deal of money, which I must endeavour to replace by literary exertion. Nothing seems to answer now but the cheap popular volumes. I have therefore been projecting two or three of that nature which I am confident would answer; and I prefer applying to yourself, not only as a liberal and spirited publisher, but as the son of an old friend for whose memory I cherish a tender regard. What I would propose in the first place is a ‘History of Natural Philosophy, or General Physical Science.’ I could make it interesting, and at once amusing and instructive. But then I shall expect a handsome premium. I would exert all my various talents only on high terms, and would despise all mediocrity either of execution or reward. Be so good as consider this proposition maturely, and let me know your decision, as I am ready to set about the task immediately, and can execute it here more easily than in the country.

There is another matter that I have to mention at the express desire of some members of the Bannatyne Club. You reserved the right of bringing out an edition of Sir James Melville’s ‘Memoirs.’ Only 80 copies were printed, and the later members are anxious to have the work. They think that an octavo edition would sell readily and come out with great effect under your name.

Most sincerely yours, John Leslie.

The years 1830-32 were a time of great perplexity to the conductors of the Quarterly Review. Reform was in the air, and party spirit ran high. The Duke of Wellington’s action in regard to Roman Catholic Emancipation was looked upon as a surrender, and the consequent disquiet of some sections of his followers rendered it very difficult for the editor of the Tory organ to choose and pursue an unbiassed line of policy. Mr. Murray wrote to William Blackwood, with whom he was in regular correspondence:

John Murray to Mr. W. Blackwood. December 20th, 1830.

“Most extraordinary changes have taken place here, all arising from the Duke’s rash and impolitic conduct respecting the Catholic question (which Moore said had made him cease to be a rebel), and his unstatesmanlike speech at the opening of Parliament. Where the rolling stone will stop God only knows. I was with Southey this morning, when he told me that as he rose from his knee at the last levee, who should be the first man to embrace him but the Lord High Chancellor of England! Lord Brougham is writing and circulating all sorts of trash to quiet the people; proving to them that they get much more by machinery than without it.”

“Well, we shall have precious work when we come to the question of Reform. It will almost to a certainty turn the Whigs out; but what the consequences may be is, I think, subject for the most alarming apprehensions. I dined on Monday last at Lord Henley’s (Peel’s brother-in-law), where I met Mr. Dawson and Sir Edward Sugden; and on Saturday last I dined in company with the whole of her Majesty’s present Ministers; I being almost the only unofficial man at table. It was really a most splendid banquet and scene altogether, all in full dress costume, even the Lord Chancellor!”

The unsettlement of men’s minds during the Reform Bill period exercised a detrimental influence on the Quarterly. which began to fall off in circulation. Lockhart even thought that Mr. Murray should reduce his honorarium to himself. Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

Chiefswood, September 16th, 1831.

“The present number is as strong a number as you ever put forth . . . but in consequence of the bad times, and the declining sale of the Review during the Reform Bill agitation, you may find it necessary to lower the scale of remuneration to editor as well as author, and I am quite willing to abide by your decision in the matter. When another fortnight is past and gone, we shall begin to have some notion of the probable future of public affairs, which must, of course, as we all feel, have great influence over private resources and arrangements. Thank God! this country is quiet. There has not been such a harvest in every way for ten years, and the heart of the husbandman singeth aloud for joy.”

Croker also sympathized with Murray, and wrote:—

Mr. J. W. Croker to John Murray.

Kensington Palace, March 26th, 1831. Dear Murray,

I return you a cheque for fifty guineas, which I suppose you meant for the article in the Q. R. on ‘The French Revolution.’ If so, it is much too large a sum, and I could only look upon it as a kind of retaining fee, and not as a remuneration. Now, I want no retainer, for I am willing to help now and then, as opportunities may arise; and therefore you must forgive my insisting on your cutting down the said cheque to the ordinary size; for instance, what any of the authors (except Southey) of the other articles have received. This I leave to your honour, and when you have done so, pray carry the reduced amount to my credit with you, for I fear I must be in your debt.

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

Even in these times, however, encouragement was not wanting, and the following letter from Mr. Philip Pusey, M.P., the brother of the late Canon of Christ Church, and a contributor to the Quarterly, is an example of the more sanguine communications which reached Mr. Murray:—

Mr. Philip Pusey, M.P., to John Murray. February 8th, 1832.

“You need not say you have not quitted the field. The last number of the Quarterly is praised even by Radicals. Things look better than they did. If they go well, we shall owe you much. If not, you and Lockhart will have rivalled ‘The Retreat of the Ten Thousand.’”

Mr. Murray did not consent to reduce the salary of the editor, nor the payment for contributions of the authors; but on the contrary, resolved to increase them. When he paid for the articles, which appeared in the Quarterly for March 1834, Lockhart answered:—“Many thanks for your cheques: that for the article on Southey’s ‘Doctor’ makes one ashamed.” And again, he wrote:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

November 20th, 1834. My Dear Murray,

I have to thank you in my own name, and for all others concerned, for your very handsome cheques. It gives me great pleasure to hear good accounts of the Number, and I sincerely hope you are not too liberal, which I often fear you are.

One result of the Reform Bill was the final retirement of Mr. Croker from official life. His active mind, however, could not remain at rest, and he turned with redoubled energy to literary work, promising to devote his pen exclusively to the Quarterly, though he seldom, if ever, from this time forward wrote an article on current politics. Mr. Lockhart wrote to Murray that he should press Croker to review the Duke of Wellington’s ‘Despatches.’ Croker immediately answered the appeal, and reviewed the ‘Despatches’ admirably in No. 102. When sending an article for the April number, he wrote to Murray from his country house at Molesey, that he had written thirty-two pages in four hours. In 1836, in which year five numbers of the Review appeared, Croker wrote ten articles, including three on ‘French subjects,’ and five on books of the season. From the commencement of the Review to April 1835, he had written no fewer than 99 articles in the first 100 numbers; some of them were brief, but others were most elaborate. After he had finished his review of Dr. Keith on the ‘Prophecies,’ he wrote:—

The Right Hon. J. W. Croker to John Murray. January 16th, 1835.

“I like it as well as anything I ever did. It seems to me a clear exposure of one of the most extraordinary frauds ever attempted, and the latter part is, to me at least, an original view of Mr. Hume’s ‘Essay on Miracles’. . . If you could borrow for me Bishop Sherlock on ‘The Use and Abuse of Prophecy’ I should be obliged to you. If all your slaves give you as much trouble as I do, you may envy a West India planter.”

January 19th, 1835.

“You remember telling me that some one (I suppose Dr. Milman) had put you on your guard about the comparatively modern date of the architecture at Petra. Is it not wonderful that that adverse point should have led to the discovery by me (if I am not deceived) of another most marked accomplishment of prophecy? for, though I did not give much weight to the objection, as the answer was obvious, still it seemed to require some explanation; and lo! while I was looking through the ‘Prophecies,’ I lighted upon Malachi i. 4, which positively predicts the subsequent more modern re-building, and I have made use of it accordingly. As this is quite new, I should like, when you read this article, to know how it strikes you. I know not how to believe that it should be left for me to discover so remarkable a corroboration of the original prophecy and the newly-discovered facts.”

March 12th, 1835. Dear Murray,

I send, as you were so good as to desire me to do, a list—as well as I could make it out—of my articles in the Q. R., being exactly as I reckon, 99 in the first hundred numbers. There are now, I believe, 115, which will make about four volumes of my works, and certainly the most valuable part of that respectable collection, if ever such a collection be made; for I have been so long dawdling about it, that I am grown more indifferent than ever. Your offer to give me the missing, or rather wanted, articles has revived my spirit of authorship. I am going to cut up ‘The Georgian Era’* for you—rare game; but I know not what else to do. If ‘Robespierre’ does not arrive in time, I think I shall try ‘Mirabeau’—but what else? There seems a dearth of matter.

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

* Memoirs of the most eminent persons who have flourished in Great Britain from the accession of George I. to the demise of George IV. Reviewed in Q. R., April 1835.

Not infrequently Mr. Murray was made the medium of communication between Mr. Lockhart and his somewhat wilful contributor Mr. Croker, as when the editor writes: “My dear Murray—I shall study the last revise of the last article and send my humble suggestions to you by-and-by, that Mr. Croker may have them in the evening;” or, “I have received a very thankful letter from Monkland and a short self-lauding one from J. W. C.;” or, again, when Mr. Croker writes: “My dear Murray—Pray forgive me, I am very sorry to give trouble and make expense, but our friends POSITIVELY Insist that I shall not give up the Thompson episode, and I am forced to submit; I send you, therefore, the sheet to be revised and have this added—if the press be not broken up, there will be little delay.”

In January 1835, we find Mr. Murray writing to Lockhart: “I had written to Mr. Croker as you desired, but upon consideration it appeared to me, that it would be so much more appropriate if done by the editor that I have not sent my letter. You can have nothing to say but that you were so much struck with the pamphlet on the first perusal that you had written a letter to me to be forwarded to the author.” In spite of this wise resolve, however, Mr. Murray did address a letter at the close of the same month to Mr. Croker, endeavouring to pacify him, and to persuade him to co-operate in producing a worthy political article “at a time when the expectation of a political article is stronger and more eager than ever I remember it to have been, and therefore to publish without one would be a shattering disappointment; but to publish with a political article which ran counter to the views of the Conservative leaders would prove very injurious to them, and to the Quarterly, as the organ of the party, so I trust and entreat, upon public grounds, that you will fulfil what I am sure you must feel to be a duty.” But Mr. Croker still remained obdurate, as we find from Murray’s letter to Lockhart on February nth, 1835: “My dear Lockhart,—As nothing has been done, said or conceived on my part that can possibly tend to alter or interfere with my arrangements with Mr. Croker respecting his connection with Q. R., I trust that they will be allowed to continue unmolested; but as my interference has, however, unintentionally given offence, I beg that you will do me the favour to assure Mr. Croker that he shall not in future be troubled with any observations of mine upon the articles which he may do me the favour of contributing to the Review.”

The two following letters, the second of which was called forth by the death of Mrs. Lockhart, must, however, be added, to show that the disagreement between the two men was, after all, but superficial, and as proving the genuine kindness of heart of Mr. Croker:—

The Right Hon. J. W. Croker to Mr. Lockhart.

Molesey Grove, Sunday, January 31st, 1836. My Dear Lockhart,

I am very glad for your sake and for that of the Review that you have had this explanation with Murray. You know that I have always attended to—I might almost say invariably followed—his opinions, for two reasons—because he is a sensible man, and because he is master of his own publication, and therefore has a right to be heard in matters so deeply concerning his interests. I therefore did not object to his interference, but to the tone of it, which was, to my feelings, intolerable. I acknowledge fully Murray’s sovereignty over the Review, but ’tis a constitutional sovereignty, and must be exercised through his ministers. He has a perfect right to change them as he thinks proper, but not to dictate to them what they shall think or say, and, above all, not to do so offensively.

As to my resuming my stated service, that is a matter which is, I admit, possible under the explanation you have had, but I should like, before I reply definitely to that proposition, to have a few minutes’ conversation with you. The late arrangement seemed to me to have two defects, which, at first sight, might appear contradictory. The work was too much, and the pay too great; and to tell you the truth, it was because I fancied that I saw, in all Murray’s communications, that he was of the same opinion, that I was resolved to terminate an engagement which, under such a suspicion, was not endurable. I wish you and Mrs. Lockhart would come here on Wednesday to dine and sleep, and meet the Bishop of Exeter and Mrs. Phillpotts, who come here for that day on their way to town. You and Mrs. Lockhart could stay a day or two longer, and we could talk over our late emeute and future settlement.

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

The Right Hon. J. W. Croker to John Murray.

Molesey Grove, Wednesday, May 24th, 1837. Dear Murray,

This is a terrible blow for us all—to me, somehow, ’tis like Walter Scott dying again; but then, poor Lockhart, and the dear motherless children!!! Is there anything that I or Mrs. Croker could do to alleviate this distress? Would they like to come here? They should find, after Monday, solitude and sympathy, and such opportunity for the diversion of sad thoughts as the country affords. I do not write to Lockhart; but as you will no doubt have some communication with him, say anything on our part that you think timely or likely to be acceptable, and offer from me to do anything that I can to relieve him from the troubles of business—though I know well that generally “the troubles of business” are God’s most bountiful mercies on such occasions. Prayer and business are the only consolations.

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

Mr. Murray was frequently invited to obtain situations for young men in London. It was through his influence with Sir Francis Freeling, with whom he was very intimate, that Mrs. Trollope obtained for her son Anthony a clerkship at the Post Office. She writes from Bruges to Mr. Murray (20th January, 1835) expressing her thanks to him and the Freelings, and adds, “he leaves the office at five, and would like to be employed as corrector of the press, or in some other occupation of the kind.” She deplored the loss of her boy, but says, “I can never forget that the last weeks of his life here were rendered as comfortable as they could be, by your premature payment.”*

Among other recommendations of young men, Murray received one in 1836, from an old friend, the Duke of Gordon, in favour of a countryman named John Douglas Cook, who came up to London, a raw Scotchman, to seek his fortune. Murray gave him a kind reception, and to aid him in the quest of literary employment placed in his hand such work as he had at his disposal. Finding out that Cook possessed real abilities, he invited him to his home and showed other kindnesses to one who had arrived in London with few other friends. More than this, Murray introduced him to Lord Mahon—for whom he executed some literary work—and to Mr. Barnes, the editor of the Times. Cook was employed by Mr. Walter as his election agent in Nottingham, where he made the acquaintance of Lord Lincoln, by whom he was sent on official business into Cornwall. Having been engaged for some years on the staff of the Times, he was selected by Mr. Beresford Hope and Mr. Cardwell to assist in the Morning Chronicle, from which he was finally transferred to the editorship of the Saturday Review. He acquired a share in that paper, and died a man of wealth.

* For her work on ‘Belgium and Western Germany.’

Mr. Crabbe, the poet, died on the 3rd of February, 1832; and his son, in communicating the event to Mr. Murray, stated that his father had left an eighth volume of poetry, and gave the contents of the work, adding, “my father has always spoken of you as having acted in the most friendly manner with regard to his literary transactions.” He also desired to know whether Mr. Murray would be disposed to publish the posthumous works, and on what terms. Mr. Murray replied by informing him of the loss which he had sustained by publishing Crabbe’s Poems. He had given £3000 for the copyright, and spent a considerable sum on the illustrations, but in the end his total loss had been about £2500. He sold the greater part of the remainder to Mr. Tegg, for one-third of what the poems and illustrations had cost him. Nevertheless he was willing to publish the life and posthumous poems under the direction of Mr. Lockhart, and offered 500 guineas for the work, but Mr. Crabbe preferred a division of profits. Mr. Murray then offered him the whole profit on the first edition of 5000 copies, taking his chance on the sale of future editions, when two-thirds of the profits were to be given to Mr. Crabbe.

Mr. Murray circulated the work, when published, to the reviewers and his friends. Praises came from all quarters, but it is unnecessary to quote them. He sent one to Dr. Paris, the well-known physician and author of ‘Philosophy in Sport made Science in Earnest,’ who replied from Brighton:—

Dr. Paris to John Murray.

My Dear Mr. Murray,

In order to convince you that I am not only living, but actually picking up my crumbs and becoming saucy, I send you an early acknowledgment of your present, received through the hands of Mr. Horace Smith:— “If Paris you would please, a gift appropriate proffer, The Apple, not a Crab, the classic sure would offer; And yet with points of taste, I will not stop to grapple, But wish your Crabbe may prove as golden as my Apple”

In a previous chapter we have mentioned the anxiety of Dr. Paris that he should not be publicly announced as the author of ‘Philosophy in Sport,’ lest it should injure him in his profession. A curious instance of this same professional jealousy is that of Samuel Warren, the author of the ‘Diary of a late Physician.’ Warren had originally studied medicine at Edinburgh, but was by profession a barrister. When the work appeared some of the medical journals made a severe attack upon it for betraying the secrets of the profession, under the belief that it was the actual reminiscences of a doctor and not a work of fiction.

To judge from the following letter, the work was detrimental to Mr. Warren’s prospects at the Bar.

Mr. Warren to John Murray.

April 20th, 1835. Dear Sir,

I beg to forward to you the enclosed volume, the very first that is published, and to express a hope that it may not unpleasantly remind you of a person who experienced much gratification in meeting you at Mr. Brockedon’s. Permit me to add that on the success of this book depend almost entirely my professional prospects, which have suffered severely through the connection of my name with ‘The Diary of a late Physician’; a circumstance which has set afloat the notion that I am not a practical lawyer. I wish I could show those who think thus how heavily they wrong me. The effect of it is that though I am one of the most laborious members of the profession, I sit from morning to night at my chambers neglected. May I hope that, if you should think it worth while to cast your eye over these pages, they may satisfy you that I do not deserve such treatment?

I think you will find that this book is one calculated for general readers; and it is certainly the only one extant that exhibits a complete picture of the present state of the English Bar, the qualifications required in those who seek to become members of it, and the nature of legal studies.

If, in short, I may, without presumption, hope for a favourable notice of it in the Quarterly—and I trust your kindness will forgive the anxiety with which I mention such a thing—I shall consider myself ever under the very greatest obligation to you.

I intended to write a note to Mr. Lockhart, but as I have not the honour of any personal acquaintance with him, I have chosen rather to throw myself entirely on your good nature.

I am, dear Sir, yours most respectfully, Samuel Warren.

The volume enclosed by Mr. Warren was his popular and practical introduction to Law Studies; and an excellent review of the work, by Mr. W. Smith, appeared in No. 112 of the Quarterly.

Southey, who had been returned Member of Parliament for Downton (before the Reform Bill passed), but refused the honour, had written, between 1808 and 1838, ninety-four articles for the Quarterly; the last was upon his friend Thomas Telford, the engineer, who left him a legacy. When about 55 years old, his only certain source of income was from his pension, from which he received £145, and from his laureateship, which was £90. But the larger portion of these sums went in payment for his life insurance, so that not more than £100 could be calculated on as available. His works were not always profitable. In one year he only received £26 for twenty-one of his books, published by Longman. Murray gave him £1000 for the copyright of the ‘Peninsular War;’ but his ‘Book of the Church’ and his ‘Vindiciæ’ produced nothing.

Southey’s chief means of support was the payments (generally £100 for each article) which he received for his contributions to the Quarterly; but while recognising this, as he could not fail to do, as well as Murray’s general kindness towards him, he allows a constant vein of discontent to show itself even in his acknowledgment of favours received.

We give a few extracts, taken almost at random, from his very voluminous letters to Murray.

Mr. Southey to John Murray. October 7th, 1818.

“Your pay is very liberal, and the price which I receive for my writings is by no means a matter of indifference to me, but it can make no difference in the manner of my writing. The same diligence, the same desire, and the same power (whatever that may be) were brought to the task when you paid me ten guineas per sheet, as when you raised it to £100 per piece. This last is a great price, and it is very convenient to me to receive it, but I will tell you with that frankness which you have always found in my correspondence and conversation, that I must suspect my time might be more profitably employed (as I am sure it might be more worthily) than in writing for your journal even at that price.”

March 3rd, 1823.

“I thank you for your letter, and return the receipt, reminding you that our agreement is for guineas, as the letter containing your offer shows. You have dealt fairly and uprightly with me, as I was confident you would do, and as I have deserved to be treated.”

“I am going tooth and nail to the ‘Peninsular War,’ and shall undertake nothing serious until it is completed. On the score of my procrastination in this and other things, you have shown a forbearance which I have always felt as a kindness, and as evincing much more of gentlemanly feeling than of what is too commonly the spirit of business.”

1828.

“The sale of books is grievously diminished within the last six or eight years: I speak feelingly. To have any success, a book must be new—a single season antiquates it; it must have come from a fashionable name (nobility is now turned to a marketable account in this way); or it must be personal, if not slanderous; but if slanderous, then best of all.”

It was said of Southey, that literature had been to him a mine of wealth. Charles Lamb said, “Southey has made a fortune by book drudgery.” But it was really very different.

“Writing for a livelihood,” said Southey—“a livelihood is all that I have gained; for, having something better in view, and therefore never having courted popularity, nor written for the mere sake of gain, it has not been possible for me to lay by anything . . . Happily, while my faculties last, I shall never be in want of employment. Just now (29th September, 1835), two presses are calling upon me, a third longing for me, and a fourth at which I cast longing eyes myself. The two which, like the daughters of the horse-leech, cry Give! Give! are employed upon Cowper and the Admirals; the third is asking for the new edition of ‘Wesley;’ and the quantity of a good Quarterly article must be written before that can be satisfied.”

In 1835 Southey received a pension of £300 from the Government of Sir Robert Peel. He was offered a Baronetcy at the same time, but he declined it, as his circumstances did not permit him to accept the honour.

Mr. Southey to John Murray. June 17th, 1835.

“What Sir Robert Peel has done for me will enable me, when my present engagements are completed, to employ the remainder of my life upon those works for which inclination, peculiar circumstances, and long preparation, have best qualified me. They are, ‘The History of Portugal,’ ‘The History of the Monastic Orders,’ and ‘The History of English Literature,’ from the time when Wharton breaks off. The possibility of accomplishing three such works at my age could not be dreamt of, if I had not made very considerable progress with one, and no little, though not in such regular order, with the others.”

Dr. Shelton Mackenzie recollects the conversation at a meeting between Southey and Wordsworth:—

“We spoke,” he says, “of American reprints of English works; and Wordsworth said it was wonderful what an interest they took in our literature: ‘it was like the yearning of a child for its parents;’ while Southey remarked, with a smile, ‘Rather the yearning of a robber for his booty.’ They reprint English works because it pays them better than to buy native copyrights; and until men are paid, and paid well for writing, depend upon it that writing well must be an exception rather than the rule. . . . . Wordsworth could scarcely believe that of a three volume work, published here at a guinea and a half, the reprint was usually sold at New York for two shillings—in later days the price has been as low as sixpence, the great sale making a fraction of profit worth looking for. Wordsworth expressed a strong desire to obtain an American reprint of any of Southey’s works; but Southey appeared quite indifferent. ‘I should be glad to see them,’ said he, ‘if the rogues would only give me a little of what the work of my brains may yield to them.’”

While Mr. Charles Lyell was in Paris, superintending the translation of his ‘Principles of Geology,’ he wrote:

Mr. Charles Lyell to John Murray. September 30th, 1830.

“The work is to be translated by M. Prevost, and he has been waiting on the king with an address from the Geological Society of Paris; since which he has been dining with his Majesty as a savant, in the uniform of a bold dragoon of the National Guards. All this, as you may well suppose, has not assisted the translation. Indeed, you can scarcely imagine a more thorough stagnation than that of the business of authors and publishers, and booksellers of works on Natural History and Physical Science in this city, of whom there are so many. I was in the medical quarter yesterday, and the booksellers told me they were reduced at last to stick up political brochures in their windows. The scientifics having at last a government to which they are not ashamed to turn courtiers, are become thorough-paced place-hunters, and they complain that they must go at 5 o’clock in order to get an audience at 10,—so crowded are the ante-chambers of every minister with suitors . . . I trust the public mind on the British side of the channel is not half so much absorbed in political affairs; if so, the success of my book must be small. In the meantime, I am well satisfied with the reception it has met with among the geologists here, some of whom have studied it already more closely than Prevost, notwithstanding his start. I am determined to spare neither time nor money to make the second volume good. To this end, finding that Deshayes is living from day to day on what he earns by writing for Encyclopaedias, &c., I have taken him off this work, and advanced a sum to get from him the full results of his magnificent collection of fossil remains, and of his extensive zoological knowledge. His own book on the subject, in consequence of his pecuniary difficulties, will not appear in less than eighteen months. Although I expend this on my own account (and it will cost me three months’ pay of his valuable time), I have been obliged to make use of your name, and to represent to him that you had at my request agreed that he should receive so much from you for zoological assistance given to me. He would not have been a stipendiary of mine, but has of course no objection to become a joint workman with me for the public.”

A curious testimony to the pains which Mr. Lyell bestowed on the working out of his theories is afforded by an extract from a letter of Mr. Murray to his son, then travelling on the Continent:

John Murray to John Murray, junior. September 16th, 1833.

“Mr. Lyell called this morning, having returned last night. He has been quite astonished at the far advanced state of geological knowledge which he found in Germany, vastly beyond France and England, and he said he was astonished at his own deficiency. He was induced to study the German language and intends to visit Germany for many succeeding years. He has given up his King’s College Professorship, nor will he lecture again at the Institution. He was chiefly in Bavaria, where men of science are stimulated by the munificent endowments of the government.”

Mr. Roderick I. Murchison was also busy with his geological works. He wrote to Mr. Murray, from Hereford (24th July, 1834), saying that he was preparing his opus magnum on the geology of the country of the Silures, and requesting that the work should be announced:—

“I have been leaving,” he said, “no stone unturned to render my Transition History, or a Tale of a very ancient Family, as perfect as the evidence will admit. First, I had Professor Sedgwick four weeks in my little carriage, and we have climbed ‘many a hill together;’ and as he has absconded—having first fully approved of all my doings—Mrs. Murchison has taken his place, and we are now moving from the Uske to the Vale of Radnor.”

A few years later, when Mr. Murchison had returned from his famous expedition to Russia and the Ural Mountains, Lockhart, who was a personal friend of the distinguished geologist, wrote of him:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

Milton Lockhart, Sept. 28th, 1840. My dear Murray

Murchison has come back grander by far than ever from his Russian travels. I fancy he must now take rank as Grand Duke. He sported in a military cap two little geological hammers in silver crosswise, so as to represent an order, and was everywhere treated, he says, en prince, and he sent the Czar a superb copy of ‘My System’ with a valedictory autograph, expressing his approbation of the Muscovite empire in general, and its Siberian strata in particular, which I strongly suspect was designed to be recompensed in some splendid shape by that amiable brother potentate. Murchison, however, seems to have amassed much curious and interesting information about Russia and the Russians, and I have encouraged him to draw out his journal in his own way with the view of letting me work its contents into an article in Venables’ little volume, including of course copious extracts from “the MS. diary of a distinguished friend.”

Your very sincere and faithful J. G. L.

Sir Alexander Burnes had published in 1834 his ‘Travels into Bokhara,’ giving an account of his wonderful journey of exploration on the N.W. Frontier of India. In 1835 he returned to India for the last time, and his account of the recently instituted Overland Route will be read with interest in these days when the journey from London to Bombay can be performed within a fortnight.

Sir A. Burnes to John Murray.

On the Nile, March 30th, 1835. My Dear Murray,

It is only four weeks this very day since I took leave of you in Albemarle Street, and here I am within a couple of hours’ sail of Grand Cairo, and in sight of those stupendous monuments of folly, the Pyramids of Egypt, which, as my favourite author Gibbon has it, “still stand erect and unshaken above the floods of the Nile, after an hundred generations and the leaves of autumn have dropped into the grave.” I cannot believe myself so far distant from the saloons of London, but the moment I reached Alexandria the line of demarcation was too apparent, the transition from civilization to barbarism was instantaneous, and we received before quitting the steamer the astounding intelligence that 15,000 human beings had died of plague within the last three months, and that 129 had perished on the preceding day in the isolated town of Alexandria. My fellow-passengers and myself tumbled our boxes into a boat and set off for Cairo without holding communication with a human being, and hitherto our journey has been most prosperous. A couple of days more will transport us across the Isthmus, and we shall in all probability reach India within fifty days of quitting the Land’s End. What locomotion! before I have done with it I shall begin to doubt my existence; as it is, I do take these towering masses, which they all tell me are the Pyramids, for those beautiful lithographs which I was looking at with Mrs. Murray on your table a month since, but then I have since spanned a goodly portion of the world, and, as you expressed some interest in my wanderings, I have resolved to fill this sheet by telling you what you and your friends may expect who are resolved on profiting by this new steam communication with India and what you may do in three months. . . .

Having thus landed in Egypt in twenty-two days, a month, or rather six weeks, may be spent in visiting Cairo, Jerusalem, Damascus, and by availing myself of the packet after the next it would be quite possible to be in London in three months!! One author—I forget his name—gives his book the name of ‘Dates and Distances, showing what may be done,’ &c. in a certain time. He does not outdo this, which ought to tempt some of the thousand and one tourists who wish to write a “book for next season,” and sigh for immortality as authors.

The Quarterly is lying before me, and, strange enough, I have been reperusing the very article which treats of Mahommed Ali in that able essay regarding the encroachment of Russia.* The Journal from which the quotations are made regarding the state and government of Egypt prove the writer to have been an accurate and an acute observer, but I do think that he has been too severe on the Pasha. To be sure he is a wholesale merchant and a wholesale oppressor, but compare him with his predecessors in this land of bondsmen, and then judge. From the very spot where I first beheld the Pyramids, Mahommed Ali has begun to dig an enormous aqueduct into which he is to turn the Nile after having bridged a new channel! the bridge is to be so constructed that he may inundate any part above the delta, and the river itself will be passed out

* ‘England, France, Russia, and Turkey,’ by Sir John MacNeill.

of its channel by an embankment which is to be formed by boats filled with stones and sunk across it!! Is this the work of a barbarian? Can a work so useful, though he may force the peasants to perform it, be called anything but a national undertaking, and whence are the supplies to be derived by Mahommed Ali but from his “faithful Commons?” But I must be done: Cairo is in sight, the boatmen are singing a song of delight, in the music not such, however, as attended Cleopatra in her galley, nor enough to make me charmed into a forgetfulness of all your many attentions to me. With the best regards to Mrs. Murray and your family, and particular remembrances to your son—Ever believe me,

Yours very sincerely, Alex. Burnes.

P.S.—I go to the Pyramids to-morrow morning, and start in the evening for the Red Sea: quick work,—but not too quick—for 190 people died here (Cairo) yesterday of the plague.

A. B.

CHAPTER XXXIII. LITERARY LADIES—FANNY KEMBLE (MRS. BUTLER)—MRS. SOMERVILLE—MRS. NORTON.

About this time Frances Ann Kemble—better known as Fanny Kemble—daughter of Charles Kemble, the actor, became one of Mr. Murray’s regular correspondents. She was introduced to him in 1830, a few months after her first appearance on the stage as Juliet, when only eighteen years old. When only seventeen she wrote ‘Francis the First,’ a vigorous historic drama, full of delineation of character. After her appearance on the stage she proposed to publish this, her first effort in literature. The circumstances under which the drama was published are related by herself.*

“I was indebted to Sir John Macdonald’s assistance, most kindly exercised in my behalf, for the happiness of giving my youngest brother his commission in the army, which Sir John enabled me to purchase in his own regiment; and I was indebted to the great liberality of Mr. Murray, the celebrated publisher, for the means of thus providing for my brother Henry. The generous price (remuneration I dare not call it) which he gave me for my play of ‘Francis the First’ obtained for me my brother’s commission.”

Before making a definite offer for the purchase of the

* ‘Records of a Girlhood,’ 3 vols. 1879, ii. 100.

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray.

“I am much obliged by your account of Fanny Kemble in ‘Bianca’ [in his own ‘Tragedy of Fazio’]. Your description has so awakened our curiosity, that Mrs. Milman and myself cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of coming up to town to see the performance. I have written to Mr. C. Kemble about places for Monday, and shall regulate my motions by his answer.”

On returning the MS. of Miss Kemble’s drama, which had been sent down to Reading for his perusal, Mr. Milman observed to Murray:—

“I have made some marginal remarks in pencil which may be of use to her. I adhere to my favourable opinion. The minor poems are very unequal, one or two good; but I should not recommend publication. Let the ‘Tragedy’ stand by itself. . . . You would, I am sure, be inclined to stretch a point in favour of one so distinguished and deserving. But, in my opinion, there is no need of any such consideration. The play, for a girl of her age, is a most extraordinary performance. It is full of life, character and vigour. Without the very high vein of poetry of Joanna Baillie, she has much more dramatic talent. The only fault is that there is stuff enough for two or three tragedies. It is in fact constructed on the plan of the historical plays of Shakespeare, and in some of these there is a second, and even a third interest.”

Mr. Murray thereupon offered Mr. Charles Kemble 400 guineas for the copyright of the drama (Miss Kemble being then under age), and added in his letter:

“Neither Mr. Milman nor Mr. Lockhart would advise the publication of the smaller poems at this time; for, although exceedingly good, they would not increase the reputation of the author of the tragedy.”

The following letters are from Miss Kemble to Mr. Murray:—

Miss Kemble to John Murray.

March 7th, 1831. My Dear Sir,

I return you my manuscript for your final sentence. I have read, and so far as my opinion warranted, have followed Mr. Milman’s improvements. I have nothing further to say, except avisez-vous. To derive profit from that which has already bestowed pleasure is, of course, desirable if possible; but if my work is worthless to others it has been worth too many happy hours to me for me to complain if it produces nothing else.

March 9th, 1831.

“My father has communicated to me your obliging note, and has left me to answer it by assuring you that I am perfectly satisfied with your offer, which I very gladly accept. I have but one favour more to ask of you, which is, whenever you publish my play to allow me to add a dedication to it. I wish very much to devote my first attempt to my mother,” &c.

May 8th, 1831.

I have heard something about your thinking a preface desirable. If it be necessary I will myself write it; but I should be sorry to trouble the public with reasons, hopes, fears, &c., which too often produce the very weariness they deprecate. Besides, I have no desire of entertaining the world at large with my private motives for publishing my play, or pleading as an exemption from criticism the early age at which it was written. If people are amused and interested by a work they need no reason for being so, and if not no reason can to them atone for dulness and disappointment. With many thanks,

Yours truly obliged, Frances Ann Kemble.

The play was published and received with great favour by the reading public; not less than ten editions having been issued within a few years. Mr. Murray sent a copy to Mrs. Joanna Baillie, then residing at Hampstead, and received the following reply:—

Mrs. Baillie to John Murray.

March 16th, 1832. Dear Sir,

I thank you very heartily for your great courtesy in sending me a copy of Miss Kemble’s tragedy. I have read it very eagerly and found it a very extraordinary work, written with much force and ability, containing many traits of real genius. It well deserves the success which I see by to-day’s papers it has met with, and I doubt not it will continue to enjoy the favour of the public. If you have an opportunity I should be very much obliged to you to convey my congratulations to the young authoress on this brilliant beginning of her career as a dramatic writer. I beg again to offer you my best thanks, and remain, dear Sir,

Your truly obliged and obedient Servant, J. Baillie.

Miss Kemble was exceedingly pleased when she heard that Mr. Murray was willing to publish her brother John’s works, the translation of the Anglo-Saxon poem of ‘Beowulf,’ and shortly after, his well-known ‘History of the Anglo-Saxons.’

“The works,” she said, “are of a nature which cannot give either a quick or considerable return; but the offer, like all Mr. Murray’s dealings with me, is very kind and liberal, for a publisher is not easily found, any more than readers, for such materials.” “The article in the Quarterly,” she again said, “on my ‘Francis the First,’* more than satisfied me, for it made me out a great deal cleverer than ever I thought I was, or ever, I am afraid, I shall be.”

After appearing at the principal British theatres, she went to America in 1832, and, while in that country, was married to Mr. Pierce Butler, a Southern planter and

* Quarterly, No. 93, written by Mr. Milman.

proprietor. Her pen was not idle, and during her sojourn in the States she began her Journal of her residence in America, the first portion of which she sent to Mr. Murray, who, writing on the 16th of August, 1834, urgently requested that the work might be published in London a few days before it appeared in America, in order that she might secure the copyright, in which case he offered 400 guineas for it. But so much interest had been excited in America about the forthcoming work, that some of the sheets were abstracted from the printing office in Philadelphia and sent to the newspapers—the editors of which attacked the author most furiously.

Mrs. Butler to John Murray.

Philadelphia, February 8th, 1835. My dear Sir,

I despatched to you some time ago the whole of the first volume of my ‘Journal,’ and received the other day from you an acknowledgment of sixteen sheets. I don’t know quite what to make of this, but where so wide a distance intervenes chances and delays are things of course, and should be taken patiently. Some portion of the book has been stolen from the printing office of my publisher here, and the wrath of the natives is excited to such a pitch against me that I can only promise the second volume if I live. The papers here have opened like a pack of hounds (as they are) upon the matter, and I have had some thoughts of forwarding a few of the paragraphs to you, for your special edification. Indeed, I think a string of these elegant specimens of criticism wouldn’t do amiss, just like the commendatory notices from such and such reviews at the beginning of my book. It may want a puff, you know, and I assure you this would be a new one. I fear I shall not see dear England again this year—perhaps never again. I am, my dear Sir,

Yours, very truly, Fanny Butler.

(or, as they write me here, Mrs. Frances Ann Kemble Butler).

The next letter was from her husband to Mr. Murray, enclosing the ‘Journal,’ printed as far as p. 136 in the second volume, and requesting that certain alterations should be made in the first volume, offering to pay the expenses of reprinting.

Mr. Pierce Butler to John Murray.

I also send, an assignment of the copyright to the Rev. Mr. Harness, an old and much valued friend of my wife’s. The ‘Journal’ will be completed in about 60 pages more. . . . The public and the publishers here are very anxious for its appearance. A few proof sheets having been stolen from the printing office, found their way into the hands of some newspaper editor who, as a matter of course, instantly published them. As there were one or two remarks not very laudatory of the manners of the natives, their ire was raised at once to an extraordinary pitch; and taking it for granted that the whole book is to be abusive, they, the newspaper critics, have lavished their abuse in no small degree. This is rather comical, inasmuch as they are criticising what they have not read. However, they are determined to be beforehand. All this will turn out to the advantage of the publishers, for my countrymen never think of buying a book written about the country unless it abuses it. Indeed, unless a book contains a certain quantity of censure—the more the better—it would not pay for the printing, no matter how great its merit as a book might be.

Yours very respectfully, Pierce Butler.

The next letter was from Fanny Butler herself.

Mrs. Butler to John Murray.

Philadelphia, May, 1835. My Dear Sir,

I send you by our faithful and trustworthy friend (Maywood), an entire copy of my book, and also a second copy of the preface I wish published with it. The gentleman who has taken charge of them for me is very desirous of knowing you. He is a countryman of your own, and as far as I know, an exceedingly “decent body.” Pray receive him for my sake and like him for his own. You can’t think how sorry I am that I didn’t accept your positive offer of 400 guineas for my book. I thought it a shabby one to be sure, but I’ve a great notion it will not fetch sixpence, and that’ll be shocking, won’t it. Pray tell me if it don’t.

Yours very truly, Fanny Butler.

The ‘Journal’ was published in 1835, but was not very well received, either in England or America. Mr. Croker wrote a review of it in the Quarterly (No. 107), beginning, “This is a work of very extraordinary talent, but, both in its conception and execution, of exceeding bad taste.” The Athenaeum described Mrs. Butler as “the authoress of this very lamentable journal,” and questioned whether the Chancellor should not have granted an injunction to restrain its publication. In America the ‘Journal’ was reviewed by Mr. A. H. Everett in the North American Review, with more indulgence than it had received at home; though the Rev. Sydney Smith praised it. While the sheets were passing through the press, Mr. Murray sent a copy of them to his friend Lady Dacre.

Lady Dacre to John Murray.

May 27th, 1835.

Thousands of thanks, dear Mr. Murray, for allowing us to read those sheets of the wonderful Fanny’s ‘Journal’ in their rough state. I cannot tell you the entertainment they have proved to Lord Dacre, and how strongly they interest me, who have always been a greater enthusiast about her than he has. The depth of thought, the vigour of writing, the high tone of poetry in her descriptions, the absolute reality of all she portrays, make her work enchanting and piquant in the extreme. One sees her own self, with her peculiarities, her great qualities and her faults, in every page. That little nostril tucking up more than its fellow is before me in all the sarcastic flings and droll passages. I hear her deep melodious voice in her descriptions of the sea, with her particular pronunciation of the first vowel. Oh, that I may really ever hear it again! We have not heard her side of the story—she cannot be so wrong towards her parents; as in all quarrels both are to blame, depend upon it; and there are two violent tempers among them we are pretty well assured of. In short, I cannot give up my Fanny. Her extraordinary powers of mind enthrall me too forcibly.

I am a little amused by her leaving in all her breakfasts, dinners, and suppers, goings to bed and gettings up, puttings out of her dresses for acting, and recording every stitch she sets in that nightcap (which must be the most richly embroidered in the world); while she gives us so many stars for passages omitted, where sometimes one’s curiosity is excited. I want to know which of her Mr. ——’s is Mr. Butler. I think it must be the sender of nosegays. The vigorous style shows the advantage of having studied the older authors as she has done. I wish she would not “progress.” How I hate that word as a verb. A few more American expressions I would fain change for the honest English she delights in. But I am chatting as if I were sitting in your own library.

Yours truly, B. Dacre.

A copy of the work was also sent to Sir Francis B. Head, who pronounced a very characteristic opinion of it.

Sir F. B. Head to John Murray.

July 2nd, 1835. My Dear Murray,

I have not had time to finish Fanny Kemble’s book, but I have seen enough of it to feel that she has been most unkindly and unjustly treated by the reviewers. I have no time, but if I had I know of no subject I would more willingly undertake than her vindication. People say she is vulgar! So was Eve, for she scratched whatever part of her itched, and did a hundred things we should call vulgar. But the fact is, everything is vulgar now-a-days. It is vulgar in London to eat cheese or pease with a knife. It is vulgar to say you are hungry or thirsty, that you perspire, even when it is supposed that you do nothing. Poor Fanny Kemble has fallen a victim to this tyranny. Her book is full of cleverness, talent, simple-heartedness, nature and nakedness. Her style is a little rough spot, but did you ever know a woman who was without one? I have no patience with the way she has been treated.

Mrs. Butler’s next letter to Mr. Murray referred to the “disobliging review of her book in the Quarterly” and after praising the admirable work of M. de Beaumont on America, she proceeded:

Mrs. Butler to John Murray.

Philadelphia, August 3rd, 1835.

’Tis a queer people and country, I can tell you. They fell into a phrenzy at Mrs. Trollope, because she said they put their feet over their heads (which is true), and with me because I said they eschewed finger-glasses (which is also true), and yet they are quite charmed with M. de Beaumont’s work, which says that commercial and conjugal contracts are held in like slight respect, and that the violation of either the one or the other does not prevent a man’s retaining his footing in society, and being held worthy of all trust, respect, and consideration (which is also true). You appear to be, just now, in a strange chaotic state in England; and as for the good folks here they are going on in the strangest way in the world; mobs in every part of the country, burning, tarring and feathering, hanging ad libitum, without judge, jury, or other warrant than their own sovereign pleasure. The Slave question is becoming one of extreme excitement. The Northern folks push the emancipation plans with all the zeal of people who have nothing to lose by their philanthropy, and the Southerners hold fast by their slippery property like so many tigers. The miserable blacks are restricted every day within narrower bounds of freedom, and the result of all is clear enough to my perception; the abuse is growing to its end, but it will not be done away with quietly. There will, I fear, be a season of awful retribution before right is done to these unfortunate wretches. Our property lies principally in Georgia. If we are ruined I think I will return to England and take up my old trade, if O’Connell has no objection.

Yours very truly, Fanny Butler.

Mrs. Butler to John Murray.

Near Philadelphia, March 26th, 1836.

I am much obliged to you for the intelligence respecting that “excellent piece of work,” my book. Mr. Butler desires me to tell you, with his best compliments, that he will forewarn you when he means to reap the wages of iniquity. And now, permit me to tell you that to lithograph a challenge is not an American custom. They are determined and desperate duellers, and universally the most reckless of any people, not savages, in the world. But Mr. Willis, I beg you to believe, is by no means a sample of either a good or a bad American. I have never heard him mentioned in this country but with unfavourable comments, and I should almost be sorry that you fancied he was a pattern Yankee. What is to befall him I can’t think, for surely Captain Marryat is not a man to be trifled with; he don’t write as if he were. How much I like his books, and how much I should like to know him! A friend of mine is about to publish a journal of his stay in England. I think it will be rather better than your friend, Mr. Slidell’s, and I will send it to you.

Yours truly obliged, Fanny Butler.

Mr. Murray frequently consulted Lady Callcott about books, and her natural shrewdness rendered her a very useful critic. About Fanny Kemble’s ‘Journal’ she wrote:

Lady Callcott to John Murray.

Let me thank you for Mrs. Butler: very clever, very romantic, some excellent feelings, but (may I say) not as womanly as I could have liked. A little too much of the tone of one living chiefly with men—the green-room, in short. I have read a volume and a half.

* * * * *

Mrs. Butler’s ‘Journal’ appears to me to improve as she goes on. The things to be objected to appear more seldom, and her criticisms on her own art and what is connected with it are so good that I should like to see them separated and much enlarged. She is a clever, and moreover a shrewd observer; and setting apart the intentional descriptions, there are traits throughout that mark a strong and fine hand.

Mrs. Somerville was a lady of extraordinary accomplishments, but in a department very remote from that of Mrs. Butler. Her early life, eccentric education, and marvellous aptitude for mathematics have already been recorded in her biography, and need not be repeated in these pages. Her first book, ‘The Mechanism of the Heavens,’ founded on the Mécanique Céleste of Laplace, was undertaken by the advice of Mr. Brougham, and was at first intended for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge; but being found too voluminous, it was afterwards published independently. The MS. was submitted to Mr. Herschell, who pronounced it a book for posterity, and above the class for whose instruction it had been intended by Mr. Brougham. It was then offered by Dr. Somerville to Mr. Murray, in August 1830. The opinion of Mr. Herschell was enclosed as to the merits of the work. Mr. Murray, though there was but little prospect of a large demand for a work so purely scientific by an, as yet, unknown author, wrote:—

John Murray to Dr. Somerville. August 2nd, 1830.

“As Mr. Brougham has said that he can ensure the sale of 1500 copies (which I confess I cannot refrain from doubting) I will, if you please, print one edition consisting of 1500 copies, at my own cost and risque, and in case of their selling will give the author two-thirds of the profits; and after the sale of this 1500 copies, the copyright shall be the sole property of the author, to dispose of in any way hereafter that may appear best for her advantage. By this proposal, I mean to try the success of the work at my own expense, merely for the author’s future benefit, without occasioning her any previous risk or expense. I give you full liberty to communicate this letter to Mr. Brougham, and if, after trying other publishers, you do not obtain a more satisfactory arrangement, you will find me still ready to fulfil what I have above proposed.”

No publisher, however, was likely to exceed or even to equal the proposed terms, and accordingly Mrs. Somerville’s first work, ‘The Mechanism of the Heavens,’ was published by Mr. Murray in 1831, and proved the forerunner of many admirable works by the same authoress. Mrs. Somerville shared in Mr. Murray’s opinion that 1500 copies could not be so readily disposed of as Mr. Brougham had imagined, and accordingly the first edition consisted of only 750 copies. The work, however, received admirable reviews from the scientific critics, and was soon entirely disposed of.

Mr. Murray, in rendering Dr. Somerville an account of the sales of the work (21st March, 1833), wrote:—

“I do not intend to diminish the profit by taking any portion of it myself; for I am overpaid by the honour of being the publisher of the work of so extraordinary a person. I have therefore only charged a commission on the actual long paid expenses for interest and bad debts.”

Mrs. Somerville herself was in Paris at the time; but on learning the results of the publication, she wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mrs. Somerville to John Murray.

Paris, April 2nd, 1833. My dear Sir,

When I consider the very unpromising nature of my work, and the small probability there was of success, I am more and more sensible of what I owe to your kindness and liberality, and beg you will accept of my sincere thanks for all you have done in this affair. I am quite surprised at the number of copies that have been sold, and I must add very much pleased, for independently of myself, I should have been truly grieved had you been a loser by having generously undertaken what appeared so hopeless. I am happy to find you have ventured on my new attempt,* and trust it will be more popular. I have done all I can to make it so, and shall be glad of any advice you may give on the subject.

We have spent the winter most agreeably, and are much delighted with Paris and the attention we have met with.

Yours, my dear Sir, very sincerely, Mary Somerville.

Mr. Murray’s next letter to Mrs. Somerville, on her return to London, contained a request that she would sit to Mr. Phillips, R.A., for her portrait. She answered:—

Mrs. Somerville to John Murray.

February 4th, 1834.

I cannot on such an occasion deny myself the pleasure of expressing to you how much I am gratified by the compliment, and I can with truth assure you that no one can feel it more strongly than,

Your sincere friend, Mary Somerville.

* ‘On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences.’

Mrs. Somerville’s next letter was written from Italy, whither she went in 1841-42 ; after alluding to family affairs, she proceeds:—

“There have been comparatively few strangers here this season, so the gaiety has been less than usual, but we always have a kind welcome and good society in the Italian houses. The Romans no longer look upon us as strangers, and we like them very much; both men and women have less information and less education than the English, but they have natural talents to fit them for anything, and when better times come, Italy will stand high among the nations. Even now, I could name some that would be remarkable in any country; they have great merit; but there is a deplorable want of books at Rome, at least books of modern date—divinity and classics plenty, but as for science or geography they are little beyond the dark ages. You will be horrified when I tell you that I mean to inflict a book on you (if you will have anything to do with it) on Physical Geography; and truly, had I depended on the public libraries here, it would not have gone beyond the time of Marco Polo. But, fortunately, I have had private sources chiefly from Englishmen settled here, and also when at Florence I had the use of the Grand Duke’s library, and made ample extracts; so I trust my pages will not be very much behind the present times. I have tried to make it more of a readable book than geographical works generally are, but of all that you are the best judge, so I hope you will tell me when you see it whether you think it likely to succeed. The first part only is ready for the press, and the rest will be forthcoming should you think it worth while. . . . Don’t suppose that you are to be let off with one volume; you shall have two, if not three, if it does not alarm you too much.”

The work on physical geography appeared in 1848, and went through many editions. It may be added that Mrs. Somerville lived to complete and publish her ‘Molecular and Microscopic Science’ at the age of 80—long after the death of her first literary patron and publisher.

Another of Mr. Murray’s correspondents, differing in the nature of her accomplishments both from Mrs. Butler and Mrs. Somerville, was Mrs. Norton. As early as 1834 she proposed that he should publish for her ‘The Maiden’s Dream.’

The Honble. Mrs. Norton to John Murray.

Aug. 2nd, 1834. Sir,

When my poem, ‘The Undying One,’ was first written, it was offered to you with a very over-rated idea of what it was worth, in many respects.

You refused to publish it, and favoured me at the time with some criticisms on the style and subject, which I have always remembered, though the temptation to publish it, at the time, was very strong, and I therefore agreed with Mr. Colburn, who made your refusal a plea for fulfilling only one half of his original agreement.

I have now another, a shorter poem by me, called ‘The Maiden’s Dream.’ I have taken pains with it, and have avoided, as far as I could, all the faults imputed to my first attempt. My wish is to print it with fugitive pieces, in one vol., and sell the MS. for £100; but I would willingly give the manuscript without the last-mentioned condition, if you would undertake the publication. I saw that you had printed Lady Emmeline Wortley’s poems: for many years you have been the encourager and supporter of poetical talent; and as I am still as eager (though I hope more humble than when I set out), I hope you do not mean to make me the exception to your rule.

If you would see me on this subject to-morrow, before five, and would name the hour most convenient, Mr. Norton would accompany me to Albemarle Street. I mention to-morrow, because it is one of Mr. Norton’s very few leisure days, and if that is inconvenient I shall hope to be able to fix another.

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, Caroline Norton.

The offer was not accepted, nor was that of ‘The Undying One,’ in 1835, though Mr. Murray gave the author some good advice. She was not baffled by his refusal, but went on writing poetry, and at the end of September 1836, proposed to Mr. Murray that he should publish for her a little poem, entitled ‘A Voice from the Factories’—the subject having been brought into prominent notice by the pamphlets and speeches of Lord Ashley. Mr. Murray accepted her proposal.

The Honble. Mrs. Norton to John Murray. Hampton Court Palace, October 7th, 1836

“I thank you for the promptitude with which you have replied to me, nor do I wish to express any disappointment at the terms on which you propose to print my little poem; having long since found out how very common the degree of literary talent is, of which I used to be so vain, and therefore no longer looking on either verse or prose as a heap of uncoined gold. . . . There is, I believe, no question but that I might publish my brief effort perhaps in one sense more advantageously among the set of publishers who do not even ask to see a book, but pay you for it because it is yours; but it is a wish—a vanity of mine—to be published by you. You know it is, for this is the third time I have endeavoured to appear under your auspices. I have sometimes thought that friends of yours who are not friends of mine have thwarted me in this particular. . . . You ought to encourage me, for you never gave any advice more faithfully followed than that which you offered when I was ambitious you should publish my ‘Undying One;’ viz.: not to attempt strained and unnatural subjects. My ‘Voice from the Factories’ is in the style you bid me adhere to; and I will still hope that you will take me under your charge.”

John Murray to the Honble. Mrs. Norton.

Abbot’s Langley, Oct. 8th, 1836.

Thanks, my dear Madam, for your beautiful, and kindly confidential letter. Had I not previously determined to fulfil, in every respect, your wishes as regards the publication of the poem, I must have been sufficiently convinced by the reasons which you have adduced (and so happily illustrated) of the necessity for its immediate appearance.

I will therefore leave this place for Albemarle Street on Tuesday, and, hoping to find the MS. on my arrival, I will instantly send it to the printer, and I can now venture to assure you that it shall be announced and published in strict conformity with the desire of its author.

I beg you to believe that I am, dear Madam, Your faithful Servant, John Murray .

The Honble. Mrs. Norton to John Murray.

16, Green Street, Oct. 19th, 1836. Dear Sir,

Owing to my absence from Hampton Court, I have only received the proofs this evening, and return them to you: hoping that you will kindly hasten the printing, in the form decided upon, as I wish to see it completed before I leave town for Dorsetshire.

I trust dining with Adam Blair* did not make you “catch a dislike to me,” as poor Douglas Kinnaird once told me he did, after he had dined with some “friends of his who were not friends of mine.” He was very cross, and when I tried to coax him out of it, he said: “the fact is I caught cold last night where I dined; there was such a draft of air; and I also caught a dislike to you, there was so much abuse and fault-finding.”

Praying that you may be kept from such sickness,

Believe me, dear Sir, Yours truly, C. E. Norton.

The ‘Voice from the Factories’ was published in the following November. The authoress was greatly pleased with the style and appearance of the volume. “Send three copies to me at 16 Green Street, a copy each to Lords

* Mr. Lockhart.

Holland and Lansdowne, and to Lord Ashley, not as from me, but merely inscribed by you ‘By desire of the Author.’”

A second edition was speedily called for, to which Mrs. Norton added several of her earlier poems.

The Honble. Mrs. Norton to John Murray.

“I am fond of the poem, and if you would allow me to reprint it, you would do me a great service; for I am in many troubles and difficulties from which I look to my pen to extricate me, as the soldier trusts to his sword to cut his way through. . . . I wish to make my volume as complete as possible, hoping under your guidance henceforward to forsake Poetry for Prose. You know you hinted to me that the door of your Review would open to me if I thought I could write for it.”

The next letter from Mrs. Norton to Mr. Murray was on a very different subject; it is without date, but it was probably written about the beginning of 1837.

The Honble. Mrs. Norton to John Murray.

24 Bolton Street, Monday. Dear Sir,

You have been very kind in sending me books. I send you a very interesting one, in my opinion, though I fear not one of general interest. It is a Letter to the Lord Chancellor on the subject of the Infant Custody Bill; and in the course of which (in answer to a direct and most bitter personal attack made on me by Mr. J. Kemble) the facts of my case are briefly given.

I hope you will read the letter and let me know your opinion upon it. Mr. Kemble’s attack wrung from me a contradiction last summer, which first appeared in the Examiner (signed with my name), and afterwards was copied into other papers. It is so easy to crush a woman, especially one whose reputation has been already slandered, that I do not think his triumph is very great, in having created a prejudice by inventing a gross false-hood; attributing to me that which I never wrote, and then abusing me in very foul and gross language as the author. I might in the same way assert that the Bishop of London wrote Little’s Poems, and that he was therefore a disgrace to the Bench of Bishops. Dear Sir, I do not suppose this “Letter” will be of sufficient consequence to be reviewed in the Quarterly, but the subject of the letter will perhaps be noticed, as it is one of the questions to be mooted this session. I entreat of you, if such shall be the case, to use your influence to prevent my name (which has grown to be only the watchword of insult and cruel abuse) from being any more alluded to. Let those who dislike me be satisfied in the assurance that I have suffered and do suffer as much I believe as my worst foes could wish. I have one poor boast, and that is, that my foes are all among strangers; it is reserved for those who never knew me personally, who perhaps never saw me in their lives, to erect themselves into judges of my character and motives, to invent an imaginary Mrs. Norton, something between a barn actress and a Mary Woolstonecraft; and to hunt her down with unceasing perseverance; while the reality of this shadow is perhaps lying ill and broken-hearted, as I was at the time when Mr. Kemble wrote against me, vainly endeavouring through the mediation of those who do know me, to arrange a quarrel I never sought, and which took place under circumstances the very reverse of those supposed by “the world.” I have trespassed on your indulgence with a very long note: pray excuse it and

Believe me, yours truly obliged, Caroline Norton.

When Mr. Murray’s fine edition of the poems of Lord Byron appeared in 1837, he forwarded a copy of ‘Don Juan’ to Mrs. Norton. Her answer was as follows:

The Honble. Mrs. Norton to John Murray.

November 4th, 1837. Dear Sir,

I have received ‘Don Juan’ and the October Quarterly. . . . In thanking you for the two volumes of Byron belonging to the present beautiful edition, I must tell you that I had never read ‘Don Juan’ through before, which very few women of my age in England could say,—and which I do not mind owning, since it adds greatly to the pleasure with which I perused the poem. I am afraid, in spite of the beauty, the wit, and the originality of the work, I think, with the Guiccioli—“Mi rincrese solo che Don Giovani non resti al inferno.” It is a book which no woman will ever like, whether for the reasons given by the author, or on other accounts, I will not dispute. To me the effect is like hearing some sweet and touching melody familiar to me as having been sung by a lost friend and companion, suddenly struck up in quick time with all the words parodied.

I am in town for a short time, occupied with lawyers and law—as usual. I used to boast of my partiality for the Bar as a profession, but I begin to think it would be pleasanter to follow a marching regiment than to see the seamy side of this intellectual trade.

Who has sprung up as Mrs. Norton in Bentley’s Miscellany! It is pretty cool of the lady taking the name and title of my husband’s wife; and I do not much like the mistake, as I have been too ill to write for those to whom I was bound by the bond of hire.

Yours ever, Caroline Norton.

Bolton Street, March 4th, 1840. Dear Sir,

Thanks for Lord Jocelyn’s book,* which, just now that we are all gaping for Chinese information, is very acceptable; and especially to me, who am too ill to go out and gossip with the rest of the world, and depend on the “dumb oracles” I find in type. Blessed be he who invented letters,—Cadmus, as I was early taught! Blessed be he who invented printing, whose name at this moment I forget! Blessed be all engravers, printers, designers, lithographers, facsimile copiers, and makers of steel plates! Blessed, even beyond these, be all publishers, especially

* ‘Six Months in China.’ By Lord Jocelyn, late Military Secretary to the Chinese Expedition.

those who send me new books! Blessed be authors and authoresses!—but in a minor degree—a sort of beggarly blessing, such as mocked poor Esau for one, having sold his birthright. Blessed be the stitchers of pamphlets, for they are read sooner than bound books! Blessed be he* who lately wrote ‘Cecil’ (though it be but a novel), for it beguiled me through a weary night, and made me forget I had a pain in my side. I cease the Kyrie of blessings, for fear you should add, “blessed be he who first thought of note paper, to confine women’s correspondence within bounds.”

Mrs. Norton wrote the following friendly greeting to Mr. Murray in the English Bijou Almanack for 1842:

“John Murray! Dare I call thee John? Yes: for who calls thee Mister Murray? The first familiar name’s the one Which puts us authors in a flurry: The first familiar name is that Long linked with memories bright and pleasant; With hours of intellectual chat O’er claret, venison, grouse, and pheasant; And all the sunshine, clouds, and blame Which hang round Byron’s chequered story, Whom thy discernment led to Fame When fools denied the wreath of glory!”

In September 1840, there appeared an article in the Quarterly, by H. Nelson Coleridge, on Modern English Poetesses. Mrs. Norton’s name headed a long list of authors criticised; her works were highly praised and she herself was styled “the Byron of modern poetesses.” Lady Emmeline Wortley and an anonymous authoress “V,” were handled in after a somewhat severe and sarcastic fashion.

The different writers were likened to various flowers. “Mrs. Norton to the Rose, or, if she prefers it, to the ‘Love-lies-a-bleeding.’ Miss Barrett must be Greek Valerian.

* Mrs. Gore was the authoress of ‘Cecil.’

Lady Emmeline is a Magnolia Grandiflora, and a Crocus too. V. is a Violet, with her leaves heart-shaped,” and so on.

On receipt of the number, Mrs. Norton wrote:

The Honble. Mrs. Norton to John Murray.

24 Bolton Street, October 31st, 1840. Dear Sir,

I ought to have thanked you from Ventnor, instead of waiting till my return to town, for your kindness in sending me an early copy of the Quarterly, containing all that comfortable flattery respecting ‘The Dream.’ I assure you I felt almost ashamed at seeing my name “first on the list called over”; but very grateful for the indulgent spirit in which the article was written, and would be glad to know to which of your Slaves of the Lamp I stand indebted. I was conscious of the egoism of the volume when I saw, collected into that form, the many scattered occasional pieces, added to the principal poem. I hope to do better yet, and will carefully avoid any faults that have been pointed out.

As to V., you have of course been made aware that she is since engaged to be married, to Mr. C , a very handsome, agreeable, well-informed clergyman (as I hear).* Now as she is forty, nothing shall persuade me that the proposal and the marriage are not the result of the Review; all the single ladies noticed in that article should instantly think of changing their names, retaining merely the floral name allotted to them in the Quarterly. I half wish I could change mine (especially since Mrs. Erskine Norton has ingeniously taken to playing at being me to all the publishers), but I dare say I should not change it to my satisfaction at this time of day; though I want ten years of “V.” and “V.” is very little, and very lame, and has not (as I am credibly informed) nearly such a straight nose as I have.

Her poetry is wonderful; I hardly believed it was a woman’s at first.

If the author of the article knew Lady E. Wortley he

* The lady in question wrote to Mr. Lockhart: “Two things have happened to me in one day which I never dreamed of. My Poems have been reviewed in the Quarterly, and I have received a proposal of marriage.”

would be too much in love with her to be able to laugh at her. She is the truest, simplest woman that ever was bit by romance; but you are an infidel, and don’t believe in women, because your Byron wrote some clever lines against the sex—yet how was so profligate a man to know good women?

Not that I defend my lady’s high-flown language and “starry sublimities” at all times; but she is so gentle and earnest and real, that I felt a little unhappy when I read the review. Poisoned daggers are a joke to being laughed at in the Quarterly!

Believe me, Dear Sir, Yours very truly obliged, Caroline Norton.

The discovery of the North-West Passage was an enterprise which half a century ago continued to excite great interest, and in 1829 Captain James Ross started on his second expedition to Baffin’s Bay, for which he subsequently obtained the honour of knighthood. In 1833 Mr. Murray wrote to his son:—

John Murray to John Murray, junior. October 22nd, 1833.

“Captain Ross and his crew are all arrived, with the exception of three men who died. When in the utmost distress for provisions they fell in with the wreck of Captain Parry’s cast-off vessel the Fury, and in it they found all the provisions preserved by the ice. They are all in London: the instant I heard of their arrival at Hull I went and applied to my useful friend Nutland* at the Admiralty, who I found was intimate both with Ross and his nephew. He called upon him the moment of their arrival, and obtained a promise to give me the publication of their ‘Journal.’ We have got to settle terms. I have not yet seen them, but left cards yesterday. I have received a very kind letter from Mr. Barrow, who has undertaken to get a confirmation of the promise.”

* The head messenger at the Admiralty.

In 1836, Sir John Franklin was appointed Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, and on his departure from London, Mr. Murray made a present of some books to Lady Franklin and her daughter.

Lady Franklin to John Murray.

August 26th, 1836. My dear Sir,

Nothing can be kinder than your valuable present to my little girl, and I promise you that it will ensure, as you desire (though it was not necessary for this purpose), our most friendly remembrance of the giver. I will only add that the choice you have made could not have suited me better had it been of my own selection, and that some of the books you have sent for Eleanor are precisely those which I should have purchased for her had I been aware of their being in print. You are well aware, I am sure, that my husband values your friendship, and can never be so far from home as not to hope that he will live in your remembrance; and I beg you to believe that these sentiments are also very sincerely those of your obliged friend,

Jane Franklin.

Sir John Franklin to John Murray.

My Dear Mr. Murray,

I know not how to thank you as I ought for your very kind and valuable remembrances sent to Lady Franklin and my child. We take them with us, and shall be often reminded, by the perusal and sight of these books, of your friendship and regard. Lady Franklin would have written her own acknowledgment of your kindness if she had not been quite overpowered by the preparations for our voyage, and with the prospect of separating for so long a time from her father and family. She feels deeply the mark of kindness you have shown, and begs me to express her best thanks to you, with every good wish and kind regards to Mrs. Murray and your family. You may rely on my bearing in mind your recommendations of the gentleman you have mentioned in V[an] D[iemen’s] Land. I have placed your note with others that will receive my best attention and consideration after my arrival. Believe me, my dear Sir, with every kind regard and good wish for all your family,

Ever most truly yours, John Franklin.

P.S.—If you should hear any news that would be interesting to us in a strange and distant land, I should be obliged by hearing it from you, or perhaps your son would allow me to ask the favour of an occasional communication from him. My letters will be forwarded by the Colonial Office. Kind regards to your son.

Mr. Murray offered Mr. Scrope Davies a copy of the new and illustrated edition of his old friend and companion Byron’s works. Mr. Davies was in Paris at the time, but was about to proceed to Dunkirk to take up his residence there.

Mr. Scrope Davies to John Murray.

May 17th, 1837. My dear Sir,

Nimrod* informs me that it is your wish and intention to present me with a copy of Byron’s works. I need not remark how much flattered I am by this mark of your recollection of one who has been so long and so entirely secluded from the world. The pleasure I feel too is not a little enhanced by hearing that, like the Thane of Cawdor, you are a “prosperous gentleman,” and I pray that good fortune may long attend you and yours. You deserve it; your conduct towards Byron when, in the autumn of 1816, I put the third canto of ‘Childe Harold’ and the ‘Prisoner of Chillon’ into your hands, was noble, as your previous conduct during his difficulties was beyond all praise. Does he still look down with a temperate scorn on the dissecting-table of your Inquisition Chamber? Of him and many others I have some notices which I much wish you to see. They are original, and I think interesting, nor am I willing that they should die with me. There was

* Mr. C. Apperly, author of the ‘Turf, the Chase, and the Road.’

scarcely a man of any celebrity during my time that I had not the good fortune some time or other to meet. With some of these beings of a finer mould I was on terms of friendship, with many familiar, and more or less acquainted with nearly all. Barring the ‘Bubbles’ (which I read because you recommended it to Nimrod) and Washington Irving’s works, I know but little of modern publications, and that little causes no regret at not knowing more. I was seduced into reading Washington Irving by accidentally stumbling on his ‘Stout Gentleman.’ The Lady Morgans, Bulwers and Trollopes of the day, have no charms for me. What is good in them is a réchauffé from others—what is their own is bad. “C’est un bonheur pour la plupart des écrivains d’aujourd’hui d’avoir la mémoire, comme c’est un malheur pour leur lecteurs.” Swift says it is a great art in writing to know when to leave off, as I am sure it is to know what to leave out—to sink the offal, as the carcase butchers say. But these writers give you the offal and sink the carcase. As you desire me to mention where you may send this splendid present of yours, I beg that it may be deposited at 47, Great Ormond Street, the mansion of my good and esteemed friend Mr. John Hibbert; and if I can be of any service to you on any occasion and in any way, you may command me. I shall quit Paris in a few days for my little residence at Dunkirk, where I intend to pass the summer. Should you visit this part of the world it would afford me much pleasure to see you, chez M. Crepin, Rue de l’Eglise, Dunkirk. Believe me,

Yours most truly, Scrope Davies.

A copy of the same work was sent to Sir Robert Peel, and gave occasion for the following correspondence:

John Murray to the Right Hon. Sir R. Peel.

Albemarle Street, April 17th, 1837. Dear Sir,

As the invaluable instructions which you addressed to the students of the University of Glasgow have as completely associated your name with the literature of this country, as your political conduct has with its greatest statesmen, I trust that I shall be pardoned for having inscribed to you (without soliciting permission) the present edition of the works of one of our greatest poets, “your own school- and form-fellow,” Byron.

I have the honour to be, &c., John Murray .

The Right Hon. Sir R. Peel to John Murray.

Whitehall, April 18th, 1837. My dear Sir,

I am much flattered by the compliment which you have paid to me in dedicating to me a beautiful edition of the works of my distinguished “school- and form-fellow.”

I was the next boy to Lord Byron at Harrow for three or four years, and was always on very friendly terms with him, though not living in particular intimacy out of school.

I do not recollect ever having a single angry word with him, or that there ever was any the slightest jealousy or coldness between us.

It is a gratification to me to have my name associated with his in the manner in which you have placed it in friendly connection; and I do not believe, if he could have foreseen, when we were boys together at school, this continuance of a sort of amicable relation between us after his death, the idea would have been otherwise than pleasing to him.

Believe me, My dear Sir, Very faithfully yours, Robert Peel.

In the same year the Countess Guiccioli was in London, and received much kindness from Mr. Murray. After her return to Rome, she wrote to him a long letter, acknowledging the beautifully-bound volume of the landscape and portrait illustrations of Lord Byron’s works. She complained however of Brockedon’s portrait of herself.

Countess Guicdoli to John Murray.

“It is not resembling, and to tell you the truth, my dear Mr. Murray, I wish it was so; not on account of the ugliness of features (which is also remarkable), but particularly for having this portrait an expression of stupidity, and for its being molio antipatico, as we say in our language. But perhaps it is not the fault of the painter, but of the original, and I am sorry for that. What is certain is that towards such a creature nobody may feel inclined to be indulgent; and if she has faults and errors to be pardoned for, she will never be so on account of her antipatia! But pray don’t say that to Mr. Brockedon.”

Mr. Murray continued to exercise his hospitality, and was especially fond of making up a party to meet any foreigner of distinction who came to him with letters of introduction. Amongst others was Count Cavour, who visited London as a youth of twenty-one, not yet entered on public life. He was introduced by William Brockedon, who had made his acquaintance on one of his Alpine journeys, while Cavour was a military cadet and a semi-prisoner in an Alpine fortress. On the eve of his departure he wrote to Mr. Murray, acknowledging his “gratitude for all your kindness to me and my friend during our stay in London. Certainly, if I could freely dispose of my time, one of the principal reasons for remaining in this great metropolis should be the desire of cultivating your very valuable friendship.”

De Beaumont and De Tocqueville were entertained on their return from America, with many distinguished persons. Theodore Hook, in one of his letters to Mr. Murray, says:—

“My project of coming to you is, I regret to say, put an end to by the fog of which I am the victim. I shall sigh and lament me in vain for all the brilliancy, wit and wisdom of which your hospitable house will be the receptacle—as I say to all my friends. Perhaps you will ask me again when the spring comes.”

Theodore Hook came to Murray’s dinners again and again. He was the soul of wit and humour, sparkling in repartee, and genial in manner and conversation. On one occasion, he met at Murray’s the Scottish lawyer and wit Lord Robertson, familiarly known as Lord Peter, judge of the Supreme Court of Session, Edinburgh, who had the reputation of being one of the wittiest men of his time. The heroes of the North and South were well matched. Lockhart backed Lord Peter, and Monckton Milnes King Theodore. Jerdan gives an account of the fair set down fight and keen encounter.

“During dinner,” he says, “the conversation was lively and sparkling, and Hook’s wonderful ready wit carried all before it. He was in high feather, inexhaustible and inextinguishable. It seemed as if the Scotchman had a very poor chance, and would be what the jockey’s term ‘nowhere.’ But Mr. Lockhart was an able tactician, and knew better. He suffered Hook to expend some of his brilliant fire, and after the cloth was removed brought out his man. He gave us at due intervals a Gaelic sermon without a syllable of the Erse language, and an Italian operatic scene without a word of Italian, and postprandial speech after speech of military, political, and other characters, to which bursts of laughter did homage for their racy performance and extraordinary ingenuity. The imitative speeches were certainly inimitable in matter and manner; and the identity of the meaningless sounds, with the tongues in which they purported to be delivered, was so perfect that it was scarcely possible to fancy that they were not bond fide exhibitions of text and discourse, and recitation and song in the Gaelic and Italian. Stimulated by this most amusing display, Hook was primed in superb trim to answer the calls for various improvising interludes, and never afforded more entertaining proofs of his marvellous talent in his astonishing natural gift. Flash upon flash burst upon every man at the table, his own backers were glorified in a superb vein of satirical ridicule, nor did the Scotch artist and his Scotch supporter escape Scot-free from the scoffing criticism of the pseudo-provoked flagellator. It was truly a day to be marked with a white stone. I shall never spend the like again.”*

Mr. Planché, in his ‘Recollections,’ gives an amusing account of one of these literary reunions; this time, however, at the house of Horace Twiss. Murray, James Smith (of the ‘Rejected Addresses’), and others, remained in the dining-room until it became very late, for Hook was giving some of his extempore songs. Being pressed for another, he proposed that the subject should be on John Murray but the publisher opposed Hook most vehemently, and chased him round the table to stop the song. Planché only remembered the beginning of the recitative:— “My friend, John Murray, I see, has arrived at the head of the table, And the wonder is, at this time of night, that John Murray should be able. He’s an excellent hand at supper, and not a bad hand at lunch, But the devil of John Murray is, he never will pass the punch!”

Tom Moore was a frequent diner at Murray’s. He writes in his Diary (December 1833):—

“Dined, Fielding and myself, at Murray’s; company, the Lockharts, Sir Charles and Lady Bell, Phillips the artist and his wife, Turner the artist, and Henry Ellis.” At a later date, he writes: “Am getting into scrapes about dinners. Company at Murray’s, Lord Mahon, Sir Francis Head and his daughter, Lockhart, &c. In the evening, Miss Head sang, and very prettily; I was of course called into play, and sang a good deal. Much surprised to find Sir Francis Head such a mild and gentle person, and so little of the ‘Bubbles of the Brunnen’ in either his look or manner. Murray sends by me to Bessie a copy of the beautiful edition of ‘Childe Harold’ he has just published.”

* ‘Autobiography of William Jerdan,’ iii. 17-20.

Mr. Murray was in the habit of residing out of town during the summer. Wimbledon was his favourite place, from a very early period, but in 1833 he took a cottage on Hampstead Heath. After an attack of his old enemy, the rheumatism, Mr. Murray went to Cheltenham in 1837, for the benefit of consulting Dr. Jephson, the famous physician. He wrote to his son (3rd November, 1837):—

“Whether I am destined to leave my bones at this place I know not, but certainly I have had sharper and more frequent illness in a small space of time than I ever remember.”

Notwithstanding his illness, he remained at Cheltenham, and afterwards at Leamington, for some time, constantly communicating with his son in Albemarle Street about works in course of publication, and about the articles in the Quarterly. His directions were most minute and particular. Regarding his dinner parties as an institution, he requested his son to invite Mr. Appleton, the American bookseller (who was then in London) to dinner, and he named certain persons whom he wished to be included in the various entertainments: the Longmans, Charles Knight, Foss, Brockedon, Macculloch, Finden, and Dickinson; as well as Milman, Croker, Lockhart, Murchison, Palgrave, Westmacott, Wilkie, Head, and others.

Dr. Robinson was a distinguished American Biblical scholar who had been making a series of journeys through Palestine, which, as described by Professor Carl Ritter of Berlin, “opened the second great era of our knowledge of the Promised Land.” He called upon Mr. Murray in October, 1840, for the purpose of publishing through him his Travels in Palestine. Mr. Murray at once agreed to undertake the work, and it appeared in the course of the following year. Dr. Robinson and his wife were agreeably entertained by Mr. Murray, and on their arrival in New York Dr. Robinson wrote:—

Dr. Robinson to John Murray. November 2nd, 1840.

“Dr. and Mrs. Robinson would express to Mr. Murray their deep and grateful sense of his kindness and liberality as manifested in the many interesting and beautiful volumes with which he has enriched their library. Mr. Murray can perhaps hardly estimate the peculiar feeling with which, after having from childhood devoured the productions of his press in foreign lands, we have now found ourselves introduced to his acquaintance and to his house, where so many of the most brilliant minds of English literature have been wont to congregate. This is perhaps a pleasure which none but one of English descent, born in other lands, can feel in its full strength.”

CHAPTER XXXIV. SCROPE—HALLAM—MR. GLADSTONE—FOWELL BUXTON—LORD MAHON—SIR R. PEEL—CARLYLE, ETC.

It has already been mentioned that Mr. Murray found it necessary to abandon the publication of original poetry, and in 1838-9 he transferred all his novels and romances to other publishers, including—Hope’s ‘Anastasius,’ Morier’s ‘Hajji Baba,’ Disraeli’s ‘Contarini Fleming,’ Lady Dacre’s ‘Recollections of a Chaperon,’ and about fifty other works of a similar character. From this time forward Mr. Murray confined himself to the publication of voyages and travels, biographies of distinguished individuals, works of science and art, and general literature, and the manuscripts continued to flow in upon him from nearly all parts of the world.

We have already had to record instances of authors protesting against the amount paid to them as being too large, rare as such incidents are in the history of bookselling. In 1837 Sir J. Barrow had nearly finished the ‘Life of Admiral Lord Howe,’ and offered the work to Mr. Murray. “You must tell me,” he said, “what you can afford to give. Whatever it be, let me have it when published, as I shall have several calls upon me early next year.” In reply, Murray offered 300 guineas for the work. Barrow’s answer came at once:—

Mr. Barrow to John Murray.

August 4th, 1837. My Dear Sir,

I cannot accept your offer of 300 guineas. It is more than the value I had set upon my labours, and I don’t see why you should pay me more than that. You must give me £250 when the last sheet is printed off, and some twelve or fifteen copies to those who have aided me; and if, at the end of twelve months, you should find that you can afford the other odd fifty, you may then give it me. If not, there is no harm done, to me at least.

Yours ever faithfully, John Barrow .

The work, when published, was well received. A copy was sent to Southey, who praised it. “From such a man,” said Barrow to Murray, “as the author of the ‘Life of Lord Nelson,’ such praise is worth having. I hope he will review it in the Quarterly* and Basil Hall in the Edinburgh, and Smyth, of Bedford, in the United Service Journal.” Barrow followed the ‘Life of Howe’ with ‘A Memoir of the Life of George, Lord Anson,’ the celebrated circumnavigator of the globe. Murray gave 200 guineas for the work, which was published in 1839, and, like its predecessor, was very favourably noticed, but, strange to say, neither book sold sufficiently to defray the cost.

Mr. Croker was another of Mr. Murray’s contributors who refused, as we have already seen, what he considered excessive payments. Throughout his long and voluminous correspondence with his publisher his letters on this subject are, without exception, of the same character. In 1832 Mr. Croker pressed Mr. Murray to send him his long outstanding account, received the following reply:—

* This he did in June 1838.

John Murray to the Rt. Hon. John Wilson Croker. September 22nd, 1832.

“I heard yesterday with great regret that you are again suffering with your old complaint in the head; this is the more provoking, as it is out of the usual course of nature for disease to attack the strongest part. I trust, however, that it will soon subside.

“At length I send your long demanded account; it is ancient of date, and there must be numerous errors of omission and insertion, but, taken as a whole, I can venture to say that the mistakes are not in my own favour. According to this statement there appears a balance due to me of £482 16s. 2d.; on the other hand, I find myself indebted to you for sundry invaluable (really to me) contributions to the Quarterly in the sum of £450, which I propose to swell into the above stated sum of £482 16s. 2d., and so, by- enclosing a receipt for the same, to close a long-standing account by a short settlement.

“Should this arrangement be perfectly agreeable to you we will start afresh, and keep accounts with more brevity and less incorrectness.

“Next week I will send you a statement of the sales of the ‘Geography and Stories,’ and with it a draft in favour of my dear Miss Nony.* Then, if you will be so very kind as to implement (as the Scotch say) your intention of occupying your leisure hours by contributing an average during the year of four sheets to each number of the Quarterly Review, you will find at your bankers one hundred and fifty pounds on the publication of each part.”

Six years later he wrote to Mr. Murray, from West Molesey, respecting some articles for the Quarterly:—

Rt. Hon. J. W. Croker to John Murray.

December 11th, 1838. Dear Murray,

Coutts’ second receipt I must return, and a cheque for the amount. I guess, from some figures which I see on the back of it, that your usual liberality thinks itself indebted

* Mr. Croker’s adopted daughter, afterwards married to Sir George Barrow.

to me for some extra contributions in the last four numbers. I confess that I am very much pleased to find that you are pleased with my articles; but I cannot acquiesce in your punctilious admeasurement, and still less in your liberal standard of extra value. In truth, I feel that I am already extravagantly remunerated, and nothing would induce me to abide by such a scale, but that you and Lockhart both tell me that you find practically that you can afford it, and that it answers your purpose. But as to any increase, under pretexts however kind and flattering, you must allow me to reject it decidedly, once and for all; and if you feel any extra satisfaction, enter it to my credit in your memory, to counterbalance some occasion when I may happen not to be so successful.

Yours ever, J. W. Croker .

Mr. Murray agreed to publish Mr. William Scrope’s ‘Noble Art of Deerstalking,’ with a narrative of a few days’ sport in the Forests of Athol, illustrated by Edwin Landseer. Mr. Scrope was the father-in-law of G. Poulett Scrope, M.P., so well known for his interesting work on the ‘Volcanic Region of Auvergne.’ Mr. Scrope thus intimates to Murray the origin of the work:—

Mr. Wm. Scrope to John Murray.

Cockerington Hall, South Lincolnshire; October 27th, 1837.

In reference to the conversation I had the pleasure of holding with you in London, I beg to say that I have written as much upon deerstalking as I think will make a good-sized volume. I have little to do but the limae labor. I have been tolerably successful in preserving some interesting stories and legends from the Highlands, as well as various other matters analogous to my subject. Mr. Skene is still at work for me, and Sir Thomas Dick Lauder has employed a Highland schoolmaster to cater for anecdotes. I have also received a short account of the principal forests in Scotland from the proprietors themselves, and expect the remainder.

I very much fear that our friend Landseer has such numerous engagements that it will be impossible to bring him “to time.” If this should unfortunately be the case, perhaps it would be best to publish the small volume first. He may then illustrate in a larger size if the book should answer; and, if he should be so inclined, I have many clever etchings of deerstalking given me and executed by my friend Sir Robert Frankland, which would answer well enough. Landseer, I know, assisted him, and I dare say he would permit them to be reduced and inserted in my pages. I speak only of this in case Landseer should feel himself unable to meet his engagement. I wish you could have an early meeting with him. You will be sorry to hear that Mr. Stewart Rose writes me word that his infirmities are so increased that he is unfit for anything, either in body or mind.

I have this day received from Mr. Fox Maule an account of an attack which a stag made upon his carriage at Taymouth. One of the horses was killed by it.

Yours, my dear Sir, faithfully, William Scrope.

P.S.—I have somewhere a humorous letter of Sir Walter Scott, which he wrote to me upon my sending him a haunch of forest venison. I am in hopes to lay my hand on it for publication.

The work was published in 1838, and soon went through three editions. Mr. Scrope, in acknowledging the amount sent to him by Mr. Murray for the first edition, wrote:—

Mr. Wm. Scrope to John Murray.

My dear Sir,

I called to thank you for the draft you sent me for £121 odd, which is a very prosperous account, especially considering that nearly the whole expenses of the edition are paid. So, thank you for your good offices, and for the celebrity of your name as publisher.

Yours always very truly, W. Scrope.

In another communication from Mr. Scrope to Mr. Murray, after the publication of the second edition, he wrote as follows:—

Mr. Wm. Scrope to John Murray.

August, 1839. My dear Sir,

I am but just returned from Chorley Wood, and hasten to acknowledge the draft you have been so good as to send me for £650 4s. 3d., which seems a large profit, much larger than I expected or deserved. I have not yet looked at the account, but I am sure, from the face of it, that you have acted with the liberality which everybody gives you credit for, and I beg leave to thank you for the zeal and kindness with which you have put forward my firstborn, and do attribute its success mainly to the respectability and good offices of its godfather and its nurse, both of which you may be said to be. Nay more, the Deer babe was born in your sheets.

Very truly yours, W. Scrope.

P.S.—Poulett Thomson goes out as Governor-General to Canada. I believe he refused the offer of Chancellor of the Exchequer on account of ill health.

Allan Cunningham had now brought his series of ‘Biographies of Artists and Sculptors’ to a close. He was a constant correspondent of Murray’s with whom he was a great favourite because of his spirit and independence.

Mr. Allan Cunningham to John Murray.

April, 1837.

Sleepest thou, or wakest thou, O John Murray? Thou art foremost of the honourable and the generous of the ancient tribe of publishers; yet verily thou art a sloth in motion, a snail in correspondence, and the most dilatory of all Conservatives. Enoch was thy ancestor, for he took twenty-seven years to answer his first love-letter; that Irish horse was thy relative, who had to be awakened with a stick or a stone; one of the Seven Sleepers had his roost high in the tree of thy genealogy, and thou art more than cousin to that drowsiest of all diplomatists, Lord Glenelg, who has slept through the noisiest administration since the first parliament of Babel. Still your cry is, Leave me, leave me to repose. To repose I shall assuredly leave you, if you will but say Yes or No to the communication which I made to you some month or so ago.

Yours always, Allan Cunningham .

This most probably related to a collection of Allan Cunningham’s ‘Songs and Poetry,’ which Mr. Murray did not publish. Their correspondence nevertheless continued as cordial as ever during the remaining years of Allan Cunningham’s life. He died a few years later (in 1842) at the comparatively early age of fifty-eight, and he left directions that only six persons were to be invited to attend his funeral, and amongst these were Mr. Murray and Mr. Lockhart.

Mr. Hallam’s work on the ‘Literary History of Europe,’ concerning which he had written to Mr. Murray, “I may say, without great presumption, considering my age, literary experience, and leisure, as well as industry, that there are not many persons in England able to execute it so well as myself,” was published in the spring of 1836, and a review of it appeared in the Quarterly. Hallam himself said of the work:—

“I have very confident hopes that this will be thought the best that I have written, and that its circulation will be adequate; but I am aware that books, like other things, move the slower for their size.”

When Southey reviewed the ‘Constitutional History of England,’ the author was offended by his strictures; but when the review of the ‘Literary History’ appeared, he thought that the work was overpraised.

Mr. Hallam to John Murray.

Feb. 24th, 1837. My Dear Murray,

I have not impudence enough to read the article on my book in the Quarterly you have been good enough to send me, without blushing, much less to think I deserve it. I suppose friend Milman is the author. The worst is, that so high praise is apt to set the public against a book. However, I may well be satisfied, and I hope at your sale it will tell to some purpose.

Truly yours, Henry Hallam .

At a later date, in August 1837, Hallam wrote to Murray:—

“I beg you will desire your prime minister to send me down the last Edinburgh Review, as I want to read Macaulay’s article. Palgrave’s work, which you refused, seems likely to do well.”

The article by Macaulay in the Edinburgh was on Hallam’s ‘Constitutional History,’ and was much higher in its praise of the work than Southey’s review had been in the Quarterly.

“It often,” said Macaulay, “rises to an eloquence, not florid or impassioned, but high, grave, and sober, such as would have become a State paper, or a judgment delivered by a great magistrate, a Somers or a D’Aguesseau . . . . on a general survey, we do not scruple to pronounce the ‘Constitutional History’—the most impartial book that we ever read.”

Mr. Milman, author of the review of Hallam’s Literature in the Quarterly, was then occupied with his ‘History of Christianity,’ and by way of a holiday was making a tour in the western districts of South England.

The Rev. H. H. Milman to John Murray. Lynton, Aug. 8th, 1837.

“Here we are in the loveliest spot in England. We shall stay about a week, and then go to Ilfracombe. We have been at Combe Florey at Sydney Smith’s; even if your antiquated Q. reviewer were to see him in the most beautiful parsonage in England amidst his parishioners, he would believe his nolo episcopari, and feel whatever compunctions reviewers may feel.”*

Even Lockhart seems to have feared that Milman might quit the Quarterly at any moment. A few years later the editor wrote to Mr. Murray:—

“I have brought Milman’s paper into a safe shape without displeasing him. He would leave the Q. R. on any slight provocation.”

But Milman held by the Review, and never quitted it to the end of his career.

In July 1838 Mr. W. E. Gladstone, then Tory member of Parliament for Newark-upon-Trent, wrote to Mr. Murray from 6 Carlton Gardens, informing him “that he has written and thinks of publishing some papers on the subject of the relationship of the ‘Church and the State,’ which would probably fill a moderate octavo volume,” and that he would be glad to know if Mr. Murray would be inclined to see them. Mr. Murray saw the papers, and on the 9th of August he agreed with Mr. Gladstone to publish 750 or 1000 copies of the work on ‘Church and State,’ on half profits, the copyright to remain with the author after the first edition was sold. The work was immediately sent to press, and proofs were sent to Mr. Gladstone, about to

* It is possible that this allusion may refer to the article on Sydney Smith’s Accession sermon, written by Croker 1837-38.

embark for Holland. A note was received by Mr. Murray from the author (August 17, 1838):—

“I write a line from Rotterdam to say that sea-sickness prevented my correcting the proofs on the passage.”

This was Mr. Gladstone’s first appearance in the character of an author, and the work proved remarkably successful, four editions being called for in the course of three years. It was reviewed by Macaulay in the Edinburgh for April 1839, and in the Quarterly by the Rev. W. Sewell in December. ‘Church Principles,’ published in 1840, did not meet with equal success. Two years later we find a reference to the same subject.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone to John Murray.

13 Carlton House Terrace, April 6th, 1842. My dear Sir,

I thank you very much for your kindness in sending me the new number of the Quarterly. As yet I have only read a part of the article on the Church of England, which seems to be by a known hand, and to be full of very valuable research: I hope next to turn to Lord Mahon’s ‘Joan of Arc.’

Amidst the pressure of more urgent affairs, I have held no consultation with you regarding my books and the sale or no sale of them. As to the third edition of the ‘State in its Relations,’ I should think the remaining copies had better be got rid of in whatever summary or ignominious mode you may deem best. They must be dead beyond recall. As to the others, I do not know whether the season of the year has at all revived the demand; and would suggest to you whether it would be well to advertise them a little. I do not think they find their way much into the secondhand shops.

With regard to the fourth edition, I do not know whether it would be well to procure any review or notice of it, and I am not a fair judge of its merits even in comparison with the original form of the work; but my idea is, that it is less defective both in the theoretical and in the historical development, and ought to be worth the notice of those who deemed the earlier editions worth their notice and purchase: that it would really put a reader in possession of the view it was intended to convey, which I fear is more than can with any truth be said of its predecessors.

I am not, however, in any state of anxiety or impatience: and I am chiefly moved to refer these suggestions to your judgment from perceiving that the Fourth Edition is as yet far. from having cleared itself.

I remain always, Very faithfully yours, W. E. Gladstone.

In the same year another author of different politics and strong anti-slavery views appeared to claim Mr. Murray’s assistance as a publisher. It was Mr. Thomas Fowell Buxton, M.P., who desired him to publish his work upon the ‘Slave Trade and its Remedy.’

Mr. Buxton to John Murray. Dec. 31, 1837.

“The basis of my proposed book has already been brought before the Cabinet Ministers in a confidential letter addressed to Lord Melbourne. . . . It is now my purpose to publish a portion of the work, on the nature, extent, and horrors of the slave trade, and the failure of the efforts hitherto made to suppress it,* reserving the remainder for another volume to be published at a future day. I should like to have 1500 copies of the first volume thrown off without delay.”

The book was published, and was followed by a cheaper volume in the following year, of which a large number was sold and distributed.

A very constant correspondent of Mr. Murray’s was the

* See ‘Life of W. E. Forster,’ chap. iv.

late Earl Stanhope (at this time Lord Mahon). Two of his letters have been selected from a very large number; the second, as containing an allusion to Mr. Gladstone’s ‘Church and State.’

Lord Mahon to John Murray.

Chevening, December 11th, 1836. My Dear Murray,

I am much obliged to you for the early copy of the Review, which I am reading with great pleasure. The article on myself was very gratifying to me. Its approbation of the work is joined to so much knowledge of the subject as to make the former truly valuable. Pray, when you see Mr. Lockhart, tell him how highly I appreciate it.

Lord Wellesley’s letter* is quite beautiful—no less noble in sentiment than nervous in language. What a pity that a man who writes so well should write so little! Let us hope that some more letters may be extracted from him.

The third article on Napier† makes me think the following no bad plan, and I accordingly suggest it for your future consideration. When all the articles on that subject in the Quarterly are concluded—and from present appearances they seem likely to extend to six or seven—how would it answer to have them printed together in a pocket volume, for the use of the army and as a useful companion (though not certainly an harmonious one) to Napier’s volumes? Pensez y.

On Tuesday we proceed to Strathfield Saye, and afterwards probably to Sir Edward Kerrison’s in Suffolk. My second volume is not very far from completion, and a third will complete the work. Believe me,

Very sincerely yours, Mahon.

* On the character of Pitt, addressed to Mr. Croker, to be used in his article on Wraxall’s ‘Memoirs.’

† By Sir George Murray: Lord Mahon’s suggestion was not adopted.

Lord Mahon to John Murray.

Chevening, December 7th, 1840. My Dear Murray,

Allow me to beg your acceptance of one of our Chevening turkeys, which, though it does not rival in size those of Suffolk—that classic land of all poultry—may, I hope, be found not inferior in flavour.

Allow me also to ask you a very ridiculous question—Is the outside of Abbotsford of stone or brick—grey, white or red in colour? My reason for asking is to please a worthy old lady—a maiden friend of ours in the country—who is busily engaged in a Scottish drawing, and who keeps it suspended until this important doubt be solved.

We are going in this week to Hertfordshire, and next for our Christmas quarters to the Land of Turkey aforesaid, namely Suffolk, but my address is always Grosvenor Place, I will take up en passant the books you had the kindness to lend me, and see how far I may be able to make any thing from them.

Mr. Gladstone’s volume has of late engaged much of my attention. It is difficult to feel quite free from partiality where so amiable and excellent a man is concerned; but, if my friendship does not blind me, I should pronounce his production as marked by profound ecclesiastical learning, and eminent native ability. At the same time I must contest) myself startled at some of his tenets; his doctrine of Private Judgment especially seems to me a contradiction in terms, attempting to blend together the incompatible advantages of the Romanist and of the Protestant principle upon that point. Believe me,

Very faithfully yours, Mahon.

The following letter illustrates the dangerous results of reading sleepy books by candle-light in bed:—

Mr. Longman to John Murray.

2 Hanover Terrace, 1838. My dear Murray,

Can you oblige me by letting me have a third volume of ‘Wilberforce.’ The fact is, that at in reading that work, my neighbour, Mr. Alexander, fell fast asleep from exhaustion, and, setting himself on fire, burnt the volume and his bed, to the narrow escape of the whole Terrace. Since that book has been published, premiums of fire assurance are up, and not having already insured my No. 2, now that the fire has broken out near my own door, no office will touch my house nor any others in the Terrace until it is ascertained that Mr. Alexander has finished with the book. So pray consider our position, and let me have a third volume to make up the set as soon as possible.

Among the other books published by Mr. Murray about this time were Sir Charles Fellows’ [the excavator of Lycia] Journal written during an excursion in Asia Minor in 1838; Captain Harris’s [afterwards Sir W. Cornwallis Harris] ‘Wild Sports in South Africa’;* Mr. John G. Kinnear’s ‘Cairo, Petra, and Damascus’; and ‘The Life of Sir Samuel Romilly.’

The correspondence with Miss Rigby (afterwards Lady Eastlake), author of ‘Letters from the Baltic,’ is interesting. In the first place Lady Palgrave wrote to Mr. Murray on the subject:—

Lady Palgrave to John Murray.

“I have many thanks to give you for the kind present of my cousin’s ‘Letters on Esthonia,’ with which, not only myself, but all our boys are delighted. I read the book to

* This book was submitted to Mr. Murray by Mr. W. J. Broderip, the well-known naturalist and police magistrate. In his letter (April 8th, 1839), he said:—

“Capt. Harris’s book is entertaining, and seems to be the work of an honest man devoted to sport, and not caring what he suffers provided he gets his shot. . . . I don’t know that I can recommend you to give a figure of the Bushwoman that shines at the head of Frederick Cuvier’s Mammiferes, though she is evidently the mother of all the Bustles. There is a little expression here and there in the Captain’s book, that might be changed for the better—such as a rhinoceros giving up ‘the ghost!’”

them for a treat at night, and we all enjoy the lively descriptions and the clever details extremely. The writer seems to me to unite all a woman’s delicacy and discrimination in home scenes and views with a want of diffuseness which is very unusual in a woman’s writing. I think, too, that there is a great evidence of originality and of being undoctored, if I may use such a term, which gives much interest to Miss Rigby’s work.”

With respect to her ‘Letters from the Baltic’ Miss Rigby wrote to Mr. Murray herself:—

Miss Rigby to John Murray.

My dear Sir,

I shall be happy to accept the proposition of one hundred pounds for the copyright of my MSS. and etchings . . . I am inclined to adopt the title of ‘Summer and Winter on the Baltic,’ or ‘The Shores of the Baltic,’ as you may think expedient. I shall make two winters and one summer, as I find the former cannot be compressed—the one being confined to Revel and the winter in the country, and the other chiefly to St. Petersburg. My journey out, or rather voyage, will be an interesting letter, but I suffered no actual shipwreck. I quite value your allowing me to have my own way about the etchings.

Mr. Murray had agreed with the Bishop of Llandaff to publish Lord Dudley’s posthumous works, but the Bishop made certain complaints which led to the following letter from Mr. Murray:—

John Murray to the Bishop of Llandaff.

December 31st, 1839. My Lord,

I am told that your Lordship continues to make heavy complaints of the inconvenience you incur by making me the publisher of ‘Lord Dudley’s Letters,’ in consequence of the great distance between St. Paul’s Churchyard and Albemarle Street, and that you have discovered another cause for dissatisfaction in what you consider the inordinate profits of a publisher.

My Lord, when I had the honour to publish for Sir Walter Scott and Lord Byron, the one resided in Edinburgh, the other in Venice; and, with regard to the supposed advantages of a publisher, they were only such as custom has established, and experience proved to be no more than equivalent to his peculiar trouble and the inordinate risque which he incurs.

My long acquaintance with Lord Dudley, and the kindness and friendship with which he honoured me to the last, made me, in addition to my admiration of his talents, desire, and, indeed, expect to become the publisher of his posthumous works, being convinced that he would have had no other. After what has passed on your Lordship’s side, however, I feel that it would be inconsistent with my own character to embarrass you any longer, and I therefore release your Lordship at once from any promise or supposed understanding whatever regarding this publication, and remain, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s humble Servant, John Murray .

The Bishop of Llandaff seems to have thought better of the matter, and in Mr. Murray’s second letter to him (January 1, 1840) he states that, after his Lordship’s satisfactory letter, he “renews his engagement as publisher of Lord Dudley’s ‘Letters’ with increased pleasure.” The volume was published in the following year, but was afterwards suppressed; it is now very scarce.

In 1840, Mr. Murray agreed to publish the Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone’s ‘History of India,’ and Lieutenant John Wood’s ‘Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Source of the River Oxus’; Mr. Murray taking the risk in both cases, and the authors to be allowed half profits. Mr. Murray’s publications embraced half the world, and now he received a letter from Afghanistan from the famous Henry Havelock:—

Captain Havelock to John Murray.

Camp Zeezeen, October 19th, 1839, Three marches from Cabool. Dear Sir,

Though personally unknown to you, I venture the liberty of addressing- you on a subject which, from a conversation I had some time since with my friend Sir Alexander Burnes at Cabool, I hope may not be uninteresting to you. I have been employed during the operations now completed against the forces of the Baruckzye family in Affghanistan, as aide-de-camp to M.-General Sir W. T. Cotton, who commanded a division during the war, and in my leisure hours have kept a rude journal of our proceedings during our long marches of upwards of 1700 miles. These have at last grown into a little volume, which is illustrated with some landscapes and military places, of which I may venture to speak in high terms, since they are not from my pencil, but that of my brother officer, Captain Kershaw of the 13th Light Infantry. Burnes is of opinion that the public in England will yet feel some curiosity about Sinde and Affghanistan, even after the appearance of Conolly’s* works and his own, and that the story of our deeds, though we managed to have but one fair fight, will likewise be interesting. This notion has induced me to trouble you with a letter, and to say, in short, that I propose to send my production to England overland to the care of a friend (as I cannot myself visit my native land before 1840), and that it is my wish, if you do not oppose it, that he should offer it for your perusal and acceptance. Should you honour it by deeming it worthy of publication, my correspondent will be authorized to treat precisely as if I were present. Whatever you may consider the book worth, my friend will receive, and hand over to you the manuscript and plates as your absolute property. I may mention, by the way, that I made my first appearance as an author twelve years ago, when I wrote a memoir of the three campaigns of Sir Archibald Campbell’s army in Ava. The work was published in India, and may never perhaps have

* ‘A Journey to the North of India, Overland from England,’ by Lieut. A. Conolly, who was murdered, in company with Lieut. Stoddart, at Bokhara during the Afghan war.

met your eye . . . I have entitled the present work ‘Personal Narrative of the Marches of the Royal Troops of the Army of the Indus’; but it will be best to let it speak for itself. I am at present returning with Sir W. T. Cotton to the British provinces, where it is probable he will have for some time the command of the army in Bengal; but the safest address will be Capt. H. Havelock, H. M.’s 13th Light Infantry, Bengal. We move by the Kyber Pass, and I propose to continue my journal to the Sutlege; but, aware of how much importance dispatch is in such a matter, I intend to send off the work brought up to the time of the occupation of Cabool. The object of this letter is merely to mention the matter to you, and I shall feel honoured by a line in reply.

I remain, with great respect, H. Havelock.

Mrs. Jameson proposed to Mr. Murray to publish a ‘Guide to the Picture-Galleries of London.’ He was willing to comply with her request, provided she submitted her manuscript for perusal and approval. But as she did not comply with his request, Mr. Murray wrote to her as follows:—

John Murray to Mrs. Jameson.

July 14th, 1840. My Dear Madam,

It is with unfeigned regret that I perceive that you and I are not likely to understand each other. The change from a Publisher, to whose mode of conducting business you are accustomed, to another of whom you have heard merely good reports, operates something like second marriages, in which, whatever occurs that is different from that which was experienced in the first, is always considered wrong by the party who has married a second time. If, for a particular case, you have been induced to change your physician, you should not take offence, or feel even surprise, at a different mode of treatment.

My rule is, never to engage in the publication of any work of which I have not been allowed to form a judgment of its merits and chances of success, by having the MSS. left with me a reasonable time, in order to form such opinion; and from this habit of many years’ exercise, I confess to you that it will not, even upon the present occasion, suit me to deviate.

I am well aware that you would not wish to publish anything derogatory to the high reputation which you have so deservedly acquired; but Shakespeare, Byron, and Scott have written works that do not sell; and, as you expect money for the work which you wish to allow me the honour of publishing, how am I to judge of its value if I am not previously allowed to read it?

Mrs. Jameson at length submitted her work for Mr. Murray’s inspection; and after some negotiation, her Guide-Book was purchased for £400; Hampton Court and Windsor being included in the ‘Picture-Galleries of London.’

Mr. Murray had much communication with Sir Robert Peel during his parliamentary career. He published many of Peel’s speeches and addresses—his Address to the Students of Glasgow University; his Speeches on the Irish Disturbances Bill, the Coercion Bill, the Repeal of the Union, and the Sugar Bills—all of which were most carefully revised before being issued. Sugar had become so cloying with Sir Robert, that he refused to read his speeches on the subject. “I am so sick of Sugar,” he wrote to Murray, “and of the eight nights’ debate, that I have not the courage to look at any report of my speech—at least at present.” When an effort was being made to assist Mrs. McLean, née Landon (L. E. L.), wife of Mr. Maclean, who died at Cape Coast Castle, Mr. Murray applied to Sir Robert Peel for a small annual pension; and she was immediately assisted with £15 per annum, which was all that there was to spare at the time.

In one of his communications to Mr. Murray, Sir Robert Peel suggested the publication of a ‘Guide Round London’:

Sir Robert Peel to John Murray.

Whitehall, July 7th, 1840. My dear Sir,

I forgot to thank you for the last edition of the Handbook, but I have found leisure to look into it, and have read many parts of it with great interest. It is really a useful and amusing work for those who do not travel. Do not you think that a very interesting work might be written, to be entitled, ‘A Historical Account of the Celebrated Villas in the Neighbourhood of London?’ I mean rather the villas that have been, than those that now exist. Look at Horace Walpole’s ‘Song on Strawberry Hill.’ How many places are there mentioned which have historical recollections connected with them, which would be worth preserving? There must be always great interest about the localities in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis. In that Song alone are mentioned Gunnersbury, Sion, Chiswick, Strawberry Hill, Greenwich, Marble Hill, Oatlands, Claremont, Southcote. You might add Wanstead, Wimbledon, Holland House, and a hundred others—many with very curious anecdotes of local and personal history connected with them. Perhaps I overrate the interest with which such a book would be read. I certainly do not, if it would equal that which I myself read the account of places in the neighbourhood of Paris, remarkable in history, but the traces of many of which are fast fading away; such as Maisons, Meudon, Sceaux, Chantilly, &c. Hampton Court, the ancient palace at Richmond, Kew, and others, might enter into the work. The County Histories would furnish a substratum, but everything would depend upon the liveliness and accuracy of the details.

Ever truly yours, Robert Peel.

The Guide-Book suggested by Sir Robert as “so valuable” was commenced by the late Peter Cunningham, and completed after his death by Mr. James Thorne.

The Rt. Hon. Sir R. Peel to John Murray.

July or August, 1840. Dear Sir,

Your printer must be descended from him who omitted not from the seventh Commandment, and finding a superfluous “not” in his possession, is anxious to find a place for it.

I am sorry he has bestowed it upon me, and has made me assure my constituents that I do not intend to support my political principles. Pray look at the 4th line of the second page of the enclosed.

Faithfully yours, Robert Peel.

Notwithstanding the vehemence of party spirit during the Reform Bill era, the Quarterly Review held its position as one of the higher organs of criticism. From 9000 to 10,000 copies were circulated quarterly. Though some of the old contributors died, or disappeared, new and sometimes better ones came to the assistance of the Quarterly. The work was admirably edited. Lockhart had the knack of greatly improving the articles submitted to him. By his knowledge of language, and mastery of English style, he added grace and point to even the best-written papers, and by a few touches he would develop a half-expressed thought, and give life and spirit to the solid sense of a heavy article. He did this, too, without unnecessary curtailment, so as not to offend, but even to gratify the authors of the papers. He was also most punctual in his correspondence with the contributors; nor was he less prompt in the publication of the successive numbers of the Quarterly at the appointed periods—so different from the irregularity of its appearance in the time of his predecessor, William Gifford.

It was said that he was cold and unsympathetic. It is true he did not wear his heart upon his sleeve, nor was he addicted to saying what he did not mean, but his heart was warm, and to those who knew him best he was invariably cordial, genial, and unreserved. Mr. George Ticknor, the American, in one of his visits to London, in 1838, dined at Mr. Murray’s, where he had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Lockhart. He did not like him, because of his coldness and reserve. Two months later, Ticknor met Lockhart again at Sir Roderick Murchison’s.

“The dinner,” said Ticknor, “was at the ultra West End, so that I thought I should never get there. The party, however, was worth the trouble, for it was a striking mixture of talent, and aristocracy, and fashion. The talent might be considered as represented by Sedgwick, Lubbock—the mathematician, whom I liked a good deal,—Lockhart, and Murchison; and the aristocracy and fashion by the haggard, dried-up Lady Davy, Sir Charles Dalbiac, the Commander of the Cavalry, the Duke and Duchess of Roxburgh, both young, handsome, and well-bred, and the Earl of Dartmouth, who renewed an acquaintance I had with him formerly at Rome, and invited me to his place in Staffordshire. It was all quite agreeable. Even Lockhart was softened by the society, and introduced the subject of ‘Ferdinand and Isabella,’ which he would not have done if he had not been very amiable. . . . He promised, when he should be in the country, to look it over, and if he finds it what he expects to find it, to give it to some person who understands Spanish literature, to make an article about it. . . . This is a good deal; and it is still more that he was really good-humoured about it.”*

In 1839 Mr. Murray, out of regard for Mr. Lockhart, took in hand an illustrated edition of his ‘Spanish Ballads,’ bestowing upon it appropriate embellishment, so as to

* The article did appear in the Quarterly (No. 127) for June 1839. written by Richard Ford, one of the best known Spanish critics of the time.

rescue a work of real genius from comparative obscurity. Mr. Murray, in writing to the author, observes: “I hope we shall produce the Book of the Season for next Christmas.”

Specimens of the new edition of the ‘Spanish Ballads’ were sent to Mr. Macvey Napier, of the Edinburgh Review.

Mr. Macvey Napier to John Murray. Dec. 22nd, 1840.

“The inspection of them is a sufficient salve to my conscience, and it besides enables me to do what is but simple justice, namely, somewhat to heighten the commendations which the writer of the articles has bestowed upon their extraordinary beauty—I say transcendent—of their illustrations. I never have seen anything approaching to them, and shall say so; and I shall moreover be sincerely glad if I shall be in any way—however slightly—aiding in directing the public attention to so expensive a publication. It really does high honour to British Art, and to the British Press.”

Among Mr. Lockhart’s new contributors to the Quarterly was Lord Ashley, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury. He wrote the article (No. 114) on the Factory System. On the Editor sending him the usual draft for the contribution. Lord Ashley returned it, with the words: “I owe, as a Conservative, such a tribute to the Quarterly, and to Murray personally, for his unvaried liberality on all occasions towards myself, that I cannot accept it.” On a later occasion Lord Ashley wrote to Mr. Murray from Brighton:—

Lord Ashley to John Murray. Jan. 5th, 1839.

“The state of the factory districts is such that I really believe the blasphemous ravings of Stephens and Oastler will beget a bloody fanaticism. You will observe that all their ferocious and devilish meetings are opened by hymns and prayer; and then they proceed to break, in spirit and in words (as yet they are afraid of deeds) the whole tenor of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. But they have learned sedition from the lips of the Queen’s ministers, and blasphemy from their tutor O’Connell. So we need not wonder at their proficiency.”

A subsequent article on the same subject called forth the following criticism from Sir Francis Head:—

Sir Francis Head to John Murray.

2 Upper Hyde Park Street, June 26th, 1842.

My son will be quite proud at receiving the first copy of the new Quarterly, the only one, I believe, that can go to India by to-morrow’s mail. I am very much obliged to you for your great kindness in sending it.

I have been peeping into it, and if the gaudy debauchery of Paris, as detailed in Art. No. I, be contrasted with the dark picture described by Lord Ashley, and alluded to in Art. 6, it must, I think, be admitted that the outside of this world has no more right to be shocked at the immorality of the inside, than the pot, many years ago, had to complain of the complexion of the kettle.

I happened the other day, as I was following a stream through the country, to ride by a silk factory worked by boys and girls, and, from the little I heard and saw, merely en passant, I think I could convince you, that in spite of Lord Ashley’s popular speech, the Devil passes many more hours above ground than below, and if you were to ask him, I believe he would tell you, with a grin, that many who wear silk are no better than those who make it. It is the fashion just now to be shocked at the idea of a boy and girl sitting cross-legged in the same “cirne” while they are being raised from the bottom of a mine, and yet their thin begrimed faces would probably blush if they could see one of our dandies and damsels waltzing together, and though we are all horrified even at the description of a poor miner’s daughter working in deshabille in utter darkness many fathoms below the surface of the earth, what would she, poor exhausted creature, say, if suddenly rising through the floor at Almack’s, she were to see before her hundreds of fine London ladies, with stark-naked backs and shoulders illumined by half a thousand wax candles?

God bless you, my dear Sir, Believe me always to remain Yours very faithfully, F. B. Head.

The year 1839 was an alarming one. The factory districts were in a blaze. Stephens was tried at Chester, and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. The Chartists proclaimed their doctrine of physical force by which to assert their rights. Feargus O’Connor announced the “sacred month;” “plug-drawing” commenced, and a crowd of hungry people, who had left their work, wandered from Lancashire into Yorkshire, and were met and dispersed at Leeds by the troops under Prince George of Cambridge. There were Chartist riots at Llanidloes, Birmingham, and Newcastle. Frost came down with his army of armed colliers, and attacked the Westgate Arms Inn at Newport. A small body of infantry were in the inn, protecting the magistrates, and after the Riot Act had been read, the Chartists were driven off, leaving eight of their number dead. Frost and others were apprehended, and sentenced to transportation for life. At the same time Feargus O’Connor was arrested, on a judge’s warrant, for seditious conspiracy, and was tried at York. During the same year the Anti-Corn Law Agitation began.

In these circumstances, the mind of Thomas Carlyle was moved, and he proposed to write an article for the Quarterly Review on The Working Classes. He had an interview with Mr. Lockhart on the subject, and found him, as he says, “a person of sense, good-breeding, even kindness, and great consentaneity of opinion with myself on the matter.” Lockhart requested that the MS. might be left with him for a week, to which Carlyle consented. The article was full of strong, outspoken words, in the style of Carlyle, and was certainly not such a paper as Quarterly reviewers were accustomed to read; the writer found fault with Parliament and its palaver, the Constabulary, the Poor Law Bill, the Irish, Radicalism, and the Corn Laws. Lockhart “returned it,” says Carlyle, “seemingly not without reluctance, saying he dared not.” It was afterwards published separately, as a pamphlet, under the title of ‘Chartism,’ with the motto, “It never smokes but there is fire.”

Towards the close of the year, Mr. Lockhart went down to Rokeby to see his friend Mr. Morritt, an occasional contributor to the Quarterly. While there he wrote to Mr. Murray, then at Leamington:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. September 24th, 1839.

“This morning our party had a sad loss in the departure of Lord Brougham, who drank very little wine, no champagne, but kept us all in a roar until long past midnight. Murchison would have died if he had heard Brougham on the philosophers of Birmingham. I expected a frank for this, but he started by 5 A.M. Morritt has just finished ‘Hallam’s Literature.’ He is in raptures with it, and says such a book, forty years ago, would have been beyond all price for the direction of his studies. He is going to interleave his copy and annotate largely.”

Lockhart next writes from Milton-Lockhart to Murray, who was still at Leamington, that he had not yet received Croker’s annotations.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. September 19th, 1839.

“They may afford me some useful hints, though I care little for his general criticism on any article or number, inasmuch as he is, and you know it, absolutely incapable of seeing anything but faults in any work of any living writer, excepting himself and his own immediate connexions. . . Head has, in his revise, improved his article,* and he has now by him my suggestions for a second re-touching. I hope he may prove more manageable this time than he was the last; but, whether or no, the paper is most powerful, and must produce, if they will read it, a painfully destructive effect upon the Government, which seems on all sides to be approaching the ne plus ultra of imbecility and consequent contempt. Depend upon it, they cannot go on through another session. The Court, their only stronghold, is woefully weakened by this Hastings’ story in its final (if final?) exposition, and will not dare to oppose itself again to the Conservative strength.”

October 26th, 1839.

“Ford writes from Paris, and wants to write a paper on the Daguerreotype, but I think that should come from a scientific hand. Oh! if we had but a first-rate man of business, who could and would write clearly and briefly—a Playfair or a Davy, or a Brougham, with all his blunders and superficialities! any hand that could command attention and give pleasure with instruction, however imperfect. Our Whewells, Brewsters, Lyells, &c., are all heavy, clumsy performers; all mere professors, hot about little detached controversies, but incapable of carrying the world with them in large comprehensive resumés of the actual progress achieved by the combined efforts of themselves and all their rivals. . . I have an offer from a first-rate Oxford hand on the life and works of Aristotle; or rather, my proposal of one has been favourably received. The Edinburgh and the Quarterly have both had much of

* Head’s article on ‘British Policy’ appeared in No. 128 of the Quarterly, published in October 1839.

Plato, but neither ever had one single article on the Stagyrite, the clearest and deepest of all human minds except Shakespeare and Homer; who writes with equal success on Moral and Natural Philosophy, the master of Alexander the Great, whose conquests were nothing to his own, either in extent or duration; above all, the grand enemy of all mystery and humbug in every department of thought and writing.”

Sir John Barrow continued a staunch friend and supporter to the end:—

Sir John Barrow to John Murray.

December 16th, 1840.

I shall always feel disposed to meet your and Mr. Lockhart’s wishes in doing anything I can for the Quarterly Review, notwithstanding your late abominable article on such a person as Carlyle, which every one condemns.* Australia is, and has been, a great hobby of mine, and I think there is now ample ground for a general view of the whole of that great continent and New Zealand, as well as a few words on Falkland Islands, more neglected than they ought to be. But Old Age, cold weather, and want of materials almost frighten one from undertaking it. Statistical accounts I may perhaps get from the Colonial Office and other quarters; but I should wish to have Colonel Collins’ account of the first convicts that landed at Botany Bay, a curious journal of transactions; and it will also be curious to compare the first beginnings with the present state of New Holland, a specimen of the rise and progress of kingdoms and nations. Phillip’s (Governor) account would also be acceptable. But I will inquire for them, and see what I can get.

Yours truly, John Barrow.†

* The article on Carlyle’s works was written by the Rev. W. Sewell, and appeared in No. 132, September 1840.

† Sir John Barrow’s article on the Australian Colonies appeared in No. 136, June 1841.

While Sir John Barrow was busy with his article on Australia, Mr. Murray received a long and interesting letter from his friend Charles J. Latrobe, first Governor of Port Phillip, now South Australia. His account of the infant settlement strangely contrasts with the present condition of the great and important offshoot of the Colonial power of Great Britain. After expressing his thanks for the literary treasures which Mr. Murray had presented to him and Mrs. Latrobe, he proceeded:—

Mr. Latrobe to John Murray.

December 15th, 1840.

You, my dear Sir, have never been transported 16,000 miles from civilization, and cannot imagine what it is to be cast so far beyond the reach of the thousand daily means of improvement and enjoyment which they possess who breathe the air of Europe; you therefore cannot know the pleasure we experience when we feel that, so far removed, there is still a chain connecting us with the old country which vibrates occasionally, and proves to us that we are at least upon the surface of the same planet with our kind and kindred. I have called our present position Exile, and so it is, to all intents and purposes. We may be content with it, but still we look forward steadily to its termination some bright day. I hope you have never done us the despite to count us as Emigrants. No, no; I do not exactly say that I would rather be hung in England than die in Australia; but still, I deprecate the latter event, if so please God. . . Society here is, of course, as you may suppose, in its infancy. The arts and sciences are unborn. Nature itself seems to be only in her swaddling clothes. The natives, for their part, look like a race of beings that were never intended to be swaddled at all, and you are almost surprised at discovering that he or she is not marsupial, like the other wild animals upon the same uncouth continent. The main interest here in everything consists in the oddity, and odd enough everything is, if that be to your taste; but there is but little variety, and one soon tires of any monstrosity. Meanwhile English, and I should say British, perseverance and industry are effecting their usual marvels; and, in spite of many disadvantages, the Colony of Port Phillip is advancing physically with extraordinary rapidity. This may be gathered from the public prints, maugre their lies and their fustian. My position thus far has been a singular one, and not without its difficulties; but I have scrambled forward with as good courage as I could muster, not troubling myself much about difficulties that might be in advance, but just grappling with that of to-day, sometimes removing it according to rule and square, and sometimes jumping over it. My people are rapidly increasing in number, a good-natured, busy, speculative, impatient set, giving me three cheers one day and abusing me like a pickpocket the next, with equally poor reasons for their praise or their blame. Recent intelligence from home seems to point to the probability of this Colony being separated from New South Wales before long. Mrs. Latrobe has not been over strong since her arrival in these regions of the globe, though enjoying good general health. I am not quite sure that standing with the head downwards (as you know we are all obliged to do here) suits the female constitution, though one gets wonderfully used to it after the first month’s trial. We live in tolerable tranquillity, despite our pre-eminence, in a pretty cottage about a mile out of Melbourne, which is really becoming a town. . . I had the common sense to start at once with the determination that whatever my supposed position and liabilities might be, so long as Her Majesty’s Government neither gave me a house nor the means of keeping an open one, I would not pretend to do so to please the little world around me. A man with a fortune may spend it, and ruin himself, to please people, if he think proper; but, having no fortune, I could not even do that. Consequently, I drew my line at once. Persons arriving in the Colony with letters from any dear friend, I welcome with all my heart, and show them every attention in my power; while to gentlemen who arrive with lithographed letters of recommendation from the Colonial Office, pronouncing their eulogy in set phrase and form, I show them the door. Que faire? I want to get back in due time to see you again in Albemarle Street, and to see something that dates further back than the year 1834. What you wrote to me of Fellows’ doings in Asia Minor quite made my heart ache. When shall I discover an ancient city, or see one? . . . And now, my dear Mr. Murray, believe that on this side of the world people have warm hearts as well as in your own, and that we are not tempted to forget those who, like yourself, have always treated us with kindness and great indulgence. Your worthy friend, Sir John Franklin, now and then writes me a friendly line. He is quite well. Lady F. is off to Adelaide. Ross is off to the South Pole; we have not seen him.

Ever, my dear Sir, Your faithful Friend and Servant, C. J. Latrobe.

CHAPTER XXXV. MURRAY’S ‘HANDBOOKS.’

No account of Mr. Murray’s career would be complete without some mention of the ‘Handbooks,’ with which his name has been for sixty years associated; for though this series was in reality the invention of his son, it was Mr. Murray who provided the means and encouragement for the execution of the scheme, and by his own experience was instrumental in ensuring its success.

An article written by the present Mr. Murray has formed the basis of this chapter, but the information contained therein has been supplemented by extracts from several unpublished letters written by him during his travels in Europe, while he was writing or revising the ‘Handbooks.’

It would perhaps be impossible to say what was the origin of the idea of guide-books for travellers; so far back as 1817 we have seen Mr. Hobhouse, after commenting on the inadequate character of most books of European travel, writing from Italy:—

“If any one writes a book of travels without telling the truth about the masters and the subjects in this most unfortunate country, he deserves more than damnation and a dull sale, and I trust you will take care he has a niche in your temple of infamy, the Quarterly. If any but a gentleman, and a scholar, and an accomplished man in every way presumes to hazard such an undertaking, ‘be ready,’ Mr. Murray, ‘with all your thunderbolts to dash him to pieces.’

“There is a wide field of glory open for any and for all answering the above description: but it would perhaps be almost impossible to find the requisite variety of acquirement and talent in one individual. The work should be done like a cyclopede dictionary, by departments.”

In later years Mrs. Starke made a beginning, but her works were very superficial and inadequate, and after personally testing them on their own ground, Mr. John Murray wrote from Munich, in September 1831:—

“I am very sorry to find that Mrs. Starke has been so precipitate in reprinting her book. The errors in the German part of it are innumerable, and I have taken great pains, ever since I first went abroad to collect information, to improve it. A new and very much improved edition of Reichardt has recently been published. Would it be worth translating, do you think? The last edition, published by Leigh, is perfectly detestable—errors in almost every line.”

Be the origin, however, what it may, there can be no doubt that its development in its present familiar form is due to the present Mr. Murray, who writes:—*

“Since so many thousands of persons have profited by these books, it may be of some interest to the public to learn their origin, and the cause which led me to prepare them. Having from my early youth been possessed by an ardent desire to travel, my very indulgent father acceded to my request, on condition that I should prepare myself by mastering the language of the country I was to travel in. Accordingly, in 1829, having brushed up my German, I first set foot on the Continent at Rotterdam, and my ‘Handbook for Holland’ gives the results of my personal observations and private studies of that wonderful country.

“At that time such a thing as a Guide-book for Germany, France, or Spain did not exist. The only

* See Murray’s Magazine, Nov. 1889.

Guides deserving the name were: Ebel, for Switzerland; Boyce, for Belgium; and Mrs. Starke for Italy. Hers was a work of real utility, because, amidst a singular medley of classical lore, borrowed from Lempriere’s Dictionary, interwoven with details regulating the charges in washing-bills at Sorrento and Naples, and an elaborate theory on the origin of Devonshire Cream, in which she proves that it was brought by Phoenician colonists from Asia Minor into the West of England, it contained much practical information gathered on the spot. But I set forth for the North of Europe unprovided with any guide, excepting a few manuscript notes about towns and inns, &c., in Holland, furnished me by my good friend Dr. Somerville, husband of the learned Mrs. Somerville. These were of the greatest use. Sorry was I when, on landing at Hamburg, I found myself destitute of such friendly aid. It was this that impressed on my mind the value of practical information gathered on the spot, and I set to work to collect for myself all the facts, information, statistics, &c., which an English tourist would be likely to require or find useful. I travelled thus, note-book in hand, and whether in the street, the Eilwagen, or the Picture Gallery, I noted down every fact as it occurred. These note-books (of which I possess many dozens) were emptied out on my return home, arranged in Routes, along with such other information as I could gather on History, Architecture, Geology, and other subjects suited to a traveller’s need; and, finally, I submitted them to my father. He had known nothing of my scheme, but thought my work worth publishing, and gave it the name of ‘Handbook,’ a title applied by him for the first time to an English book. But these Routes would have been of comparatively little value, except for the principle and plan upon which they were laid down. I had to consult the wants and convenience of travellers in the order and arrangement of my facts. Arriving at a city like Berlin, I had to find out what was really worth seeing there, to make a selection of such objects, and to tell how best to see them, avoiding the ordinary practice of local Guide-books, which, in inflated language, cram in everything that can possibly be said—not bewildering my readers by describing all that might be seen—and using the most condensed and simplest style in description of special objects. I made it my aim to point out things peculiar to the spot, or which might be better seen there than elsewhere. Having drawn up my Routes, and having had them roughly set in type, I proceeded to test them by lending them to friends about to travel, in order that they might be verified or criticised on the spot. I did not begin to publish until after several successive journeys and temporary residences in Continental cities, and after I had not only traversed beaten Routes, but explored various districts into which my countrymen had not yet penetrated.

“I began my travels not only before a single railway had been begun, but while North Germany was yet ignorant of Macadam. The high road from Hamburg to Berlin, except the first 16 miles, which had been engineered and macadamised by an uncle of mine by way of example to the departments of Ponts et Chaussées, was a mere wheel track in the deep sand of Brandenburg. The postilion who drove the miscalled Schnellpost had to choose for himself a devious course amidst the multitude of ruts and big boulders of which the sand was full, and he consumed two days and a night on the dreary journey. In those days the carriage of that country (the Stuhlwagen ) was literally a pliable basket on wheels, seated across, which bent in conformity with the ruts and stones it had to pass over. . . . I was among the first to descend the Danube from Pesth to Orsova below Belgrade, near the spot where the river, having previously spread out to a width of five miles, is compelled to contract to 300 or 400 yards, in order to rush through a narrow gorge, or defile, split right through the range of the Carpathians, for its escape towards the Black Sea. In a timber barge I swept over the reefs and whirlpools in its bed, not yet fit for steamers to pass, admiring the wondrous precipices descending vertically to the water’s edge, as far as to the Iron Gate. All this is described for the first time in my Handbook, as well as the ‘writing on the wall’ left by the Romans under Trajan, in the shape of two rows of put-lock holes, continued for 12 miles along the face of the precipice, made for the wooden balcony road by which the invincible Romans had rendered this ‘impasse’ passable and practicable for their armies. It is worthy of remark that from the days of Barbarian invasion which swept away the road, none other existed on this spot until 1834-35, when the Austrian Government blasted a highway through the limestone cliff along the left bank of the Danube. My explorations ended at the Turkish frontier of Wallachia, which was not to be overstepped in those days without the penalty of six weeks in quarantine. I had already passed the Hungarian military frontier, and its line of outposts like our coastguard, and had penetrated into Carinthia and Carniola, where I visited the almost unknown cave of Adelsberg, with its subterannean lakes and fish without eyes, and I descended the quicksilver mine of Idria, in which it is death to work more than six hours in a week underground. I have especial pleasure in remembering that the first description, in English, of the Dolomite Mountains of Tyrol, not a scientific one (Murchison and Sedgwick were before me), appeared in my ‘South Germany,’ first edition. I explored those scenes of grandeur in company with a geological friend in 1831-32. Thousands of my countrymen now follow my advice and my footsteps yearly.”

While the younger Mr. Murray was the originator and author of the well-known ‘Guides,’ it is to his father that the familiar name of ‘Handbook’ is due, as well as the uniform red cover which has become the badge of the British traveller.

The following extracts from Mr. John Murray’s letters home tell their own tale, and any comment on them would be superfluous. In these days, when every accessible corner of Europe may be said to have a special literature of its own, it is interesting to look back and realize what were the difficulties and discomforts which beset a traveller half a century ago.

It is further interesting to note that the ‘Handbooks’ were not the work of a mere stay-at-home student, but of one who determined to leave no stone unturned in acquiring a personal knowledge of the districts he was engaged in describing.

Mr. Murray’s companions on his principal journeys were Mr. Wm. Brockedon, the artist, or Mr. Torrie, a nephew of Professor Jamieson, whose Geological lectures Mr. Murray had attended while a student at Edinburgh University.

These extracts have been selected as being fair specimens of a large mass of correspondence, written by Mr. John Murray to his family during his journeys abroad.

Bordeaux, Hotel de France, July 9th, 1830.

“My first halt after Marseilles was made at Aix; the place is not interesting, but the neighbourhood is, from a Geological point of view, which was my object in remaining there a night and a day. . . . A walk of about a league all the way up hill under a très grand soleil, brought me to the scene of action, a mine from which gypsum is extracted for making plaster-of-Paris. I descended and remained sometime in the subterranean passages, which I found agreeably cool. I was told by the workmen that the place was quite overrun with mice, which is curious, considering that their only means of support consists in the droppings of oil from the lamps of the miners, and an accidental crust of bread skilfully extracted from the pocket of a jacket by chance thrown off to facilitate the labours of its owner. From these quarries, which were explored two years ago by Messrs. Murchison and Lyell, I procured some curious specimens of fossil fish and insects, which I am bringing along with me. . . .”

Venice, August 7th, 1831.

“. . . Last night I made an excursion to the Armenian convent on the Island of San Lazzaro, to visit the Padre Pasquale Aucher, he had not by any means forgotten you, and asked very kindly after you. He conducted us over the convent, snowing us the library in which Lord Byron used to receive his lessons from him. He has recently had for pupils Lord and Lady William Russell, to the former he has dedicated a translation of Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ which he has recently made, and which has been printed at the press of the convent. This he also showed to us. I should fear that this, though perhaps a useful, is not a very profitable part of the establishment. He lastly brought us seats in the neat little garden, which has been formed in the space enclosed by the cloisters (here coffee and lemonade was prepared for us), entertaining us in the meantime with his very agreeable conversation. He continues to speak English very well, and is warm in praise of the whole nation, with the exception of Lady Morgan, who has lugged him into her ‘Italy’ rather unceremoniously. One occurrence only he said had given him annoyance during his visit to London, that was the being mistaken for one of the witnesses against the Queen, whose trial was going on at the time: considering the Father’s reverend station, together with the gravity of his long beard, this was a most unlucky mistake. However he was enabled to make it understood that though he came from Venice, he was not asked to leave, and had no knowledge of the business. He is aware that a preface was written by Lord Byron for the Armenian Grammar: it was suppressed at Father Pasquale’s request because it contained some very strong passages against the Sultan, the Sovereign of his native country, who might easily have retorted on his friends and kindred for such an insult. He has given me a copy of his Armenian Milton for you, together with his own portrait. He received us with a kindness and good nature which was the more remarkable, as he is, I fancy, very much pestered with visits from English people, and especially in our case, as I found that our visit was paid at an hour when, by the convent regulations, the door ought to have been shut, and at last he was obliged fairly to turn us out and the key upon us.”

Salzburg, August 20th, 1831.

“. . . My last letter was put into the post at Laibach, as I was unluckily too late to despatch it from Trieste. We left the latter place yesterday week; before I set out I had the satisfaction of being introduced to Lord Byron’s friend, Mr. Barry of Genoa, who has lately come to reside at Trieste. As soon as I heard his name I exerted myself to find him out; he was in bed, unwell, but got up on hearing my name, but on this account I was obliged to curtail my visit. He was very civil, showed me some of Byron’s letters and papers, among them one written by Lord Byron in Fletcher’s name, giving a ludicrous account of his own death, addressed to Hobhouse as being one of his executioners. He describes his master’s patience on his death-bed; he only d——d his friends once or twice, and wished that Kinnaird’s Play might be d——d as well as himself. Barry has, I believe, the last letter Byron ever wrote, dated April 9, also a miniature taken at Genoa—in which he is represented thin and wan-looking, wearing a foraging cap with a gold band, and a plaid (the Gordon) jacket.”

Munich, August 31st, 1831.

“. . . . From Salzburg we took the Vienna road in order to reach the fall of the Traun, which Sir H. Davy had already brought into notice in England. We found the road crowded with people hastening from Vienna, evidently in alarm for the cholera, which at one time was supposed to have actually made its appearance in that city, several persons having died suddenly and of very suspicious cholics. The retreat of the Imperial family to Schonbrun also probably strengthened the report, though I believe it was unfounded. The terror of the disease is spreading through Germany. Within these few days a cordon has been established on the Bavarian border, and had we been at Vienna we should certainly not have been allowed to pass through it. The Austrian Government, in their paternal care for the people, have published a paper of advice, recommending frequency of ablutions, both of person and habitation, and to abstain from butter, old cheese, green apples, and things sour. I suppose there have been nearly a hundred different brochures published respecting this pestilence. Remedies of all sorts have been put forth, one of which is no other than Dr. Sangrado’s vizpine water, and not a few are collections of prayers for the aversion of the calamity. Those which are good are almost entirely indebted to English publications for their matter. The experience of German physicians confirms the notion of its being epidemic (conveyed by air), and no cordon, however strong, has as yet stood against it. Its ravages in Hungary are said to be terrible. The peasants there are neither clean nor well fed; they are very closely packed in their houses, and generally there is no more than one medical man to attend to a population of eight or ten thousand. . .”

Munich, September 18, 1831.

“I see that the news of the cholera being at Vienna is contradicted, the cases of sickness which have occurred there turn out to be of a different character, and health passports are again issued to travellers. The precautions taken by the Government are quite wonderful. There is an overseer appointed to every house in Vienna who daily goes over them, sees that they are regularly fumigated, and gives to each individual a drop of some preparation.”

Munich, October 1st, 1831.

“Within the last fortnight Munich has been gradually filling with refugees flying before the cholera. Though the information respecting Vienna in my last was correct, yet it appears a wonderful change took place two days afterwards. After a remarkable storm of rain, which lasted forty-eight hours, with great violence, the cholera, which to all appearance had been smothered, burst forth with great fury. The newspapers will inform you of the number of deaths which, however, considering the population, is not very great. It has not yet made much progress on its way hither, and probably will not arrive here before Christmas. The Government, however, have long since begun to take precaution against it, and the shop windows are filled with broad belts of flannel, called cholera belts, which are intended to be tied round the stomach as a preventive. Among the illustrious refugees is the Vienna Baron Rothschild, who seems to take great care of himself, never going out, even in the hot weather, which we have at present, without his great-coat; but he is evidently prepared to cut and run on the first alarm. The hotel was thrown into great confusion last week by the announcement that a Polish nobleman with a family, a train of thirty persons, were to arrive on a stated day. At the appointed time they made their appearance in the town; landaus with imperials above and coffers below; lacqueys behind and before; barouches, britskas, and chaises; a complete caravan dislodged from their quarters in an Austrian halting-place, by this formidable foe. It is said that Prince Metternich’s family is expected.”

Liege, November 6th, 1833.

“Early next morning we crossed the frontier of Bavaria, which in this part appears a dull country, previous to reaching Passau, the situation of which town, at the junction of the Inn with the Danube, hemmed in by commanding heights, is remarkable. You will imagine what are the désagrémens of travelling in this part of the Continent when I tell you that, among other things, the coach constantly stops in the middle of the night, or early in the morning, at a place where it is met by a cross coach coming from a different quarter, and in consequence of the irregularity of travelling, it is detained at this inconvenient time for two or three hours. This happened to us at Ratisbon; here the coach arrived at about half-past three in the morning; our slumbers were all broken, and we were turned out into the room of a dreary inn, to wait till seven. It was useless to think of going to bed, and absurd to go out in the dark, so I awaited the approach of day in a sort of half-dose. Just because it was wanted, the sun delayed his appearance for about an hour longer than usual, and when he did appear, did little good, owing to the thick mist which lay heavily over the town, and reminded me almost of a London fog. I groped my way in the dark to the old cathedral, where the priest was mumbling matins to a few old women, over several of whom I stumbled. The uncertain light of a few tapers, aided by the approaching dawn, enabled me to form some notion of the grandeur of the building, and also to examine the exterior of the old town hall, which is only remarkable for being in former days the meeting-house of the German Diet.”

Cologne, Sunday, August 30th, 1834.

“I pushed on to Spa by a new road, and another beautiful valley, that of the Vesdre. Spa is out of fashion; the English have deserted it for the Brunnen of Nassau, and Leopold has not patronised it as the King of Holland used to do. It is, however, a pretty spot, and interesting from the recollections of our forefathers who used to visit it; indeed, it is from this place that all mineral springs, even down to the Beulah, get the name of Spa. I wished to see the routine of the bather’s life; but no sooner had I arrived than it was dinned into my ears that an Englishman had just made an important discovery of a cave with stalactites which was a kind of world wonder! Upon the strength of this, I hired a horse after dinner, and, taking a guide to show me the way, set out over a horrid cross road a distance of nine miles. It was dusk when I arrived; a boy was sent with me as a guide, bearing a candle. We passed through an old cave or grotto, which has been known for some years, till at last the boy, stopping at a crack or gash in the floor, said, ‘There, that is the way into the new grotto’; and, taking up a stone, he let it fall into the cleft. After some minutes, down it came with a splash into the water. The fellow then said, ‘Ah, I have been once, and I don’t intend to go again; will you go?’ With such a useful companion in case of need, and my own bad eyesight, I did not care to run the risk, so I returned. At the mouth of the cave I met a large party, consisting of the discoverer himself, an Englishman of the strange name of Hoy, his servant, an artist, and many guides. I immediately spoke to them, and asked if I might accompany them, to which Mr. H. consented. I went back to a sort of inn, borrowed a blouse, and bespoke a bed, knowing that the Englishman intended to pass some hours in the cave. When we reached the hole, I found, by the aid of several lights, the top of a ladder just peeping out of the bottom of it, so that resting my hands on each side of the cleft, I could just reach it with the end of my toe. The descent was not, after all, so very difficult or dangerous, only the hole is at present so narrow that there is not room for the body to pass through along with the ladder, so that you can only put one foot upon it at first, and swing the body round, and cling by the hands till the narrow gap is passed. The worst was that, after all this—after tumbling over rocks, climbing through a passage, in one place so low that for twenty yards it was necessary to crawl, not on all fours, but on my belly—after scrambling over a subterranean river, and nearly breaking my leg in a hole, into which it was fortunate my body did not go, along with the other leg—the cave was no great thing to see after all; but perhaps I am no judge, having seen Adelsberg, the finest cave in the world. Still, there are a few fine stalactites in this, and I was amused with the adventure. As soon as I had satisfied my curiosity, having been nearly three hours underground exploring the passages—so extensive are they—I took my leave, and—as I was very anxious to get back in time to see the Redoute at Spa that night—set out over the moors and through the dark lanes, with nothing to light me but the stars above and the glow-worms beneath, after the wind had blown out the lanthorn which was given to my guide at the inn. The road was so bad by day that there were very few places where one could trot, so you may suppose we could not make rapid progress in the dark. We did not get back till half-past eleven, when the Redoute was shut, and nearly all Spa in bed.”

Bourges, August 12th, 1841.

“Angers, where my journey ended, is a very antique town, and pleased me much, though modern improvements, quays, and houses looking like bandboxes from their whiteness and newness, are destroying in part its original character. Besides the cathedral full of painted glass, here is one of the sternest, loftiest, largest, and best-preserved castles I ever saw. Its seventeen towers, built of slate and layers of white stone, which make them look as though hooped round, rise 80 feet above the river, separated by a yawning fosse from the rest of the town. They show you within it the remains of the palace where good King Rene (see ‘Quentin Durward’), father of Margaret of Anjou, was born, and in the Devil’s Tower the oubliettes down which prisoners were cast. Here also, beside the castle, is the old Military Academy—now degraded to a barrack, and its curious carvings of houses, coats of arms, &c., defaced—where the Duke of Wellington was educated. From Angers, which lies on a tributary of the Loire, I travelled by land, but I soon came on the prettiest part of that river, near Saumur, passing upon the top of a lofty dike extending as far as Orleans, raised long ago to repress the river. Acacia-hedges, vines, and walnut-trees, with orchards and rich crops of corn, cover the country. Saumur also has a castle, which, together with its houses, is white, while the general character of Angers is black, so it makes a pleasing and smiling contrast. Near this I saw one of the most curious Druidical remains in France; a hut or house formed of huge blocks of unhewn stone placed upright to form the walls, with others laid flat above for the roof, just as you would make a house of cards. . . . I turned aside to Fontevrault, memorable as the burial-place of our Kings Richard Cœur de Lion and his father Henry II. The vast church in which they lie, situated in a quiet valley, was, as usual, pillaged and ransacked at the Revolution, and these statues, interesting as portraits, were torn from their tombs and broken. They now lie in a dark corner with mutilated visages and broken noses, enclosed by bolts and bars and grilles, for the church has been converted into a prison, which is much to be deplored. After having come a considerable distance on a cab, hired expressément, I was very nearly turned away by the pert daughter of the gaoler, who shut the gate in my face, because the Minister of the Interior had lately published an ordinance prohibiting visitors entering prisons; but by perseverance, and explaining that I did not care a fig for the prisoners, but only for the chapel, I won my way.

“My day’s journey ended at Chinon, a little town on the River Vienne, with a castle of enormous extent, now one vast heap of ruins, but originally the residence of our Kings Henry II. and Richard I., who held it as Counts of Anjou, and afterwards of the Kings of France. It stands on a most commanding platform of rock, divided into three parts by very deep fosses cut in the rock. In one pile of crumbling, roofless walls, where the position of once-stately rooms without number is shown by broken chimneys and windows, tradition has recorded that Joan of Arc was first introduced to Charles VII., and, distinguishing him from among his courtiers, led him to the recess in the thickness of the wall, apart from the rest, where she revealed to him things which the chroniclers say convinced him of her mission from heaven. Here are many dungeon towers in which the Grand Master of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, and the four chiefs of the order may have lingered; and from another tower ran a secret passage by which Charles VII. visited his mistress, Agnes Sorel, in the house which he had built for her outside the walls. At Tours I was in the land of ‘Quentin Durward,’ and one of my first proceedings was to visit the house of Tristan l’Hermite—the hangman of Louis XI.—in one of its narrow streets; it is a curious building, certainly, of that time, but I believe the chief authority for attributing it to that personage is, that along its brick walls, among the ornaments of its windows and doors, runs a rope, well-carved, twisted at intervals into a very pretty knot remarkably like the noose of a halter. I climbed up to the top of its turret stair, which, rising above the neighbouring houses, curiously enough commands a view of Louis XI.’s residence, Plessis-les-Tours. To that ill-omened house of horrors, of bigotry and wickedness, I next walked; all its fosses and walls, watch-towers and pitfalls, so well described by Sir Walter Scott, have disappeared under the plough; and the castle itself (a very small fragment of which only remains, converted into a dwelling, with a tower stair at one corner), so far from possessing either the picturesque or frowning aspect of a castle, is a mean, red-brick house, with a tiled roof nearly as high as its walls, and large sash-windows groined with stone. Yet this was the style of building at the period, partly corresponding with that of Hampton Court. However, at the end of the garden I was shown one vaulted dungeon in which the lady of the house told me was Cardinal Balue’s prison, and her little daughter conducted me to a neighbouring cottage, where, in an outhouse lumbered with empty casks, I discovered a small vaulted chapel, where, doubtless, Louis used to say some of his numerous prayers. To give an idea of his religious notions, here is a specimen I lately met with. I do not think it is mentioned in the novel. It is written from Plessis to the Prior of a distant church: ‘Maître Pierre, mon ami, je vous prie, comme je puis, de prier incessamment Dieu et Notre Dame de Sales que leur plaisir soit de m’envoyer la fièvre quarte, car j’ai une maladie dont les physiciens disent que je ne puis guérir sans l’avoir, et quand je l’aurai je vous le ferai savoir incontinent.’ He probably had his wish, for a little while after he writes to beg the Prior will pray our Lady of Sales ‘qu’elle me donne guérison parfaite.’”

Bayonne, August 28th, 1841.

“. . . My companion and I have just returned from making a dash into Spain! This will probably surprise you, as I gave you no previous notice, but as the scheme was of my suggesting, I did not know whether Torrie would like it; he however was nothing loath, and I am happy to say the expedition has turned out successfully and afforded both of us much pleasure. As the inducements to the journey, besides that of having a glimpse of a country and people entirely new to us, I may mention my desire to explore the farthest roots of the Pyrenees on the W., where they push themselves into the sea, and to visit the extreme S.W. country of France, a district not yet Trollopized, and indeed scarcely described by any English traveller, but interesting as being the country of the Basques. I had also some curiosity to see the effects which war leaves upon a country, the frontier of Spain bordering on France, being as you know, the battle-field of the late war between Carlists and Christines, and I return blessing the happy star which exempts our little island from the horrors of such a scourge. The sight of it would do good to Joseph Hume, and all such as vote against our Army and Navy Estimates, which, under Providence, have the effect of keeping all enemies at a distance from our door. We quitted this place (where there is little to be seen except the Adour river, which the Duke of Wellington’s army crossed a mile below the town, just out of reach of the guns of the citadel, one of the strongest in France) yesterday morning, on the top of a diligence which runs from this to St. Sebastian, established within the last eight months; all communication having been stopped while the war lasted. The little river Bidassoa, which the Duke of Wellington crossed also in his triumphant entrance into France from Spain, driving Marshal Soult before him, divides the two countries. A little below the bridge is an earth bank tufted with grass, a mere strip of ground on which one or two cows were feeding, called Ile des Faisans, memorable because upon it, as a piece of neutral ground, Cardinal Mazarin and the Spanish General Haro negotiated the marriage of Louis XIV. A pavilion was erected in the centre, and approaches were made from both sides by bridges for the Ambassadors and their suites to meet. Inundations have carried off a large part of the isle, which has also been cut and pared by the peasants in order to lay the earth on their fields, so that in a few years probably it will not exist. Scarcely had we passed beyond the fortified house—flanked with loop-holes and trussed by enormous stone buttresses at the end of the bridge, forming the Spanish Custom House, and guarded by soldiers of that country, who, in their blue uniforms and white duck trousers and gaiters, look neater than the French—than we began to see traces of the war in ruined houses; and on the approach to Irun, the first village about two miles off, we passed a large house of rude masonry by the roadside, the lower windows of which were built up with stones so as to leave only a narrow loop-hole in the middle to fire through. It formed a fore-post for General Evans, who finally succeeded in taking the town. Some of the most conspicuously placed houses in Irun are literally peppered and pocked from top to bottom with shot-marks, while in others the damage is concealed by a coat of whitewash, serving, as a Spanish cloak often does, to conceal rags and rents below it.

* * * *

“The postilions who drove us had in one or two instances been out with Don Carlos—one still wore the military great-coat bearing C.V. buttons now turned into a boxcoat; they urge on their horses and mules—for both occur mixed in one team—by calling each by its name and scolding them with volleys of Spanish oaths—quite different from and twice as bad as the French. To complete the contrast, and fully assure us we were in Spain, we had not advanced eight miles before out started from among a party of peasants assembled by the roadside, on the approach of our conveyance, a pair of wild-looking but athletic fellows in blue caps and blouses, with heavy guns slung behind their backs, and ran by the roadside for a whole stage keeping up with the horses. These were miquellates, or police officers appointed to escort and protect us from robbers—as in the present state of the country there are many wild fellows about, and the Zaragossa diligence was robbed a few days ago to a very large amount, taken from the different passengers. In our case there appeared to be no risk of such an adventure; but really the country seems made for robbery and war, a very thieves’ Paradise. The houses, great, heavy, square flat-roofed buildings with thick walls and small windows, are ready-made forts, every little window commanding the road looks like a loop-hole, and the country is so tossed about with hills, enclosed with winding, defile valleys, having sudden turns, so scattered with mounds and banks, and sprinkled with tufts, bushes, hedges, and bits of old wall—an ambuscade might be formed at every five yards. . . . After toiling up a long and very steep ascent we came in sight of St. Sebastian—the Gibraltar of the north of Spain—a tall, rocky eminence, with a crown of embrazured walls bristling with cannon on its top, rising out of the sea in the middle of a bay, which extends two hilly arms on either side. A tongue of sand, along which the road is carried, joins the rock to the land, and at the end of the causeway, which every advancing tide contracts in width to a musket-shot, lies the small town, nestling under the tall rock and also surrounded by very strong and lofty fortifications. Its aspect as you descend the hill towards the sea is very striking, but our attention was partly withdrawn from it by the objects in the fore-ground. The whole slope of the bay towards the fortress, forming a curve of high hills extending for five or six miles, is sprinkled over with cottages and convents, and with the exception of one or two which have been repaired or rebuilt in the last eighteen months, not one remains entire; the roofs smashed in or entirely gone, the inside gutted of every bit of timber, with heaps of stones, already grass-grown, lying where once were hearthstones and chambers; the windows empty or built up with loopholes; the outer walls scarified by shot, except where some cannon-ball or shell had gone clean through, leaving either a hole or prostrating the walls entirely. Such is the aspect of the country within a radius of three miles from St. Sebastian—such the consequences of war. These houses were good points for annoying the fortress, and were on this account occupied by the Carlists in besieging it; they, dislodged by its cannon, were sometimes buried under the ruins, but always burning or gutting the habitation before they quitted it.”

Barrèges, September 7th, 1841.

“. . . . It happens that the watering-places of the Pyrenees are so placed as to form excellent halting-places for mere tourists, while in passing from one to the other, or in short excursions, you see all the finest scenery. The number of English we have seen here is remarkably small, I cannot help thinking because so little is known of the country. There is literally no tolerable guide. I know no district so destitute, and we are obliged to feel our way at every step by gleaning oral information. Torrie is a most invaluable and delightful companion. It is like seeing with another pair of eyes to have him at my elbow, and it is not a little agreeable to revive old recollections and associations of former journeys. After having been so many years separated, there was yet a question, on once more travelling together, how far our tastes might agree. The result has proved that no change has occurred, and he has so much good sense and good temper that it is impossible, I am sure, to find a more agreeable companion. Owing to his long illness, however, he still feels the effects of his rheumatism in his knees to such an extent that he cannot take very long walks, so that we have hitherto not made any arduous expeditions. The longest walk we have taken was from Cauterets to a small lake called Lac de Gaube, about twelve miles there and back, through fine scenery, but up hill all the way. The lake has a melancholy interest from the death of a newly-married English pair—who arriving at this lonely spot, where there is only a solitary fishing hut. in the absence of the fisherman got into his wretched ticklish canoe for a row—when in the middle of the lake the boat upset, how, no one knows—and they were drowned, without any eye to mark their fate even. In toiling up the steep path, Torrie’s sharp eye discovered the recent footmarks of a bear’s paws, claw and heel as distinct as possible imprinted probably not more than three or four hours before. Snow had fallen in the night, which had probably caused Bruin to descend lower than usual in search of food. We made the pretty little village of Luz our headquarters for a day or two, on account of its central situation for making several excursions. The chief of these is to the Cirque de Gavarnie, distant about fifteen miles. We set out on horseback soon after six, with a guide, Jacques, recommended by our worthy little fat landlady, Madame Caseaux, who gives almost the best dinners to be found in the Pyrenees.

“Favoured by brilliant sunshine and fresh morning air, we toiled up the valley, past the edge of precipices, down which the eye looked plump 250 or 300 feet into the green and frothy river, agonized within the narrow cleft, barely opened for it between the rocks; below, we trotted over many narrow bridges of planks, suspended over gulfs and cataracts, and galloped by waterfalls innumerable, many of them bestridden by water-mills four or five in a row, not much larger than boxes, looking at a distance like beads on a white thread. About half-way in descending a hill towards a village called Gedres, where the gorge expands into a basin-shaped valley, we had a fine view of the mountain called Marboré, which rises above the Cirque de Gavarnie, all covered with snow, and beside it we saw equally clearly the far-famed Brèche de Roland. This is a square gap in the wall of rock, forming the crest of the mountain, and made by the Paladin en Chef Orlando, with one smashing blow of his sword when he passed over into Spain to fight the Moors. We pulled up and eyed it attentively; I with my glass. From where we stood it looked a mere notch, or like the gap left in an otherwise well-filled jaw, by the loss of a single tooth. Yet we gazed on it with interest from the story, and its name, and its great elevation, 9000 feet above the sea, and Torrie advised me to make the ascent, he of course, not being equal to it. The idea had occurred to me already; the ambition of the exploit, and my desire to benefit the readers of the ‘Handbook’ (should there be any readers) prevailed, and I proposed to our guide. The suggestion came unexpectedly upon him. We had started one hour and a half too late, he said, and it would take four hours’ hard climbing from the foot of the ascent. In short he seemed very lukewarm. Still the ascent was at once decided on. At Gavarnie we were provided with crampons, spikes for the feet, and with spiked batons, which a wild dishevelled lass bore, scampering after our ponies about three miles from the village as far as the Cirque. This is a natural amphitheatre, surrounded not by mountains, as valleys commonly are, but by a circle of precipices, rising like a wall on all sides, save one where there is a break to let out the river formed by the drainage of many glaciers, and of twelve or sixteen streamlets which descend over the walls of rock in falls like white strings. In the Cirque of Gavarnie, its walls are divided into three or four steps or terraces, and between each terrace is a glacier of ice and snow heaped up—the whole surmounted by numerous sharp snowy peaks. As a scale to show you the dimensions of the Cirque, there is one fall which descends in one white cord, down the face of a precipice 1200 to 1400 feet high. Yet there is a singular ocular deception; you arrive at the entrance, and think the waterfall close at hand, but you toil on over rough fallen stones and glacier for nearly half an hour before you reach its foot, the distance being a long mile. I have now got to the foot of the mountain, and the very verge of my paper, and in consequence must break off; but I promise to continue my narrative immediately on another sheet.”

With regard to the following letter, the reader must bear in mind that it was written sixteen years before the Alpine Club came into existence, at a time when the science of mountaineering, as now understood and practised, was in its earliest infancy.

Bagnères de Bigorre, September 8th, 1841.

“Before quitting the village of Gavarnie, by Tome’s advice I fortified myself with breakfast—some trout and a very tough chop, washed down with a small quantity of red wine and water, but the wine being very bad, I did not take much of it. “But,” you exclaim, “you have brought us to the foot of the mountain; why don’t you carry us up?” The fact is, I cannot see my way up, and neither you, nor any other person, coming to the Cirque for the first time, would divine that there was any way up. It is all wall and precipice, perpendicular all the way round. Jacques, however—the sturdy guide of eighteen years’ standing, who has been up to the Brèche twice this year, and four or five times last, and more than forty times in his life—is leading the way steadily over stripes of dirty glacier and heaps of pointed stones fallen from above since the Creation, and perhaps part before it, while the world was a chaos. He, however, makes steadily for the right-hand corner, picking his way where no path is visible, to a slightly-projecting buttress of rock, seemingly as abrupt and vertical as any other part. Here, however, he commences literally escalading the precipice, and as the undertaking is now not to be avoided—no shirking, your humble servant set to work in earnest to imitate Jacques, and find his way. Where we began, the rock is literally a sheer wall; but, being composed of shivery limestone—a kind of slate—it breaks off into splintery edges, which serve, with care, as steps. I do not profess to be especially courageous, or provided with strong nerve, or endowed with remarkable strength or steadiness of head, and felt it was only by firmly riveting my attention to the object before me, the very spot on which I was to place my foot, that I could avoid the distraction and tendency to giddiness produced by a sheer glance down a precipice hundreds of feet beneath me. In many places the steps were very wide apart, or instead of a projection offering a hold for the foot, nothing but a smooth space of slate presented itself; now and then my blindness prevented my discovering the proper steps, and I then had to feel my way, aided by the guide’s instruction, and grasping firm hold by the hands of some projection above. Here the spiked pole was much in the way, and I was tempted to throw it aside—it was well I did not. The guide made his way steadily upwards, putting one foot before the other in the same even steps, as though regularly beating time, but always ascending, sometimes up a steep bank of greensward, at another up a projecting buttress of the limestone rock, the strata of which, being almost vertical, resembled the leaves of a book, only quite ragged round the edges. In this way we toiled up for two good hours—of incessant hard staircase work without intermission of level ground. The heat was intense, and I felt a constant throbbing in the drums of my ears; once or twice we stopped to draw breath, and it was a glorious sight to look around upon the Cirque, and the snowy ridges surmounting it; it was a glorious sight now to look down upon the precipices and waterfalls beneath my feet, which just before I had gazed up at with aching head.

“After each twenty minutes of hard toil I looked round upon the great waterfall, the 1200 feet cascade, as a measure of my own progress in ascending—and it was a tough job to get the mastery of him, and look down upon him, I assure you. The only sound in this wilderness hitherto had been the murmur of these falling waters, but about twelve, when the sun had become powerful, a distant report like thunder attracted my attention, followed by another; it was the roar of the avalanches stirred by the heat, and a very respectable broadside the Pyrenees kept up that afternoon, not much inferior to the Alps.

“At the height we had now attained—about 1500 feet from the bottom of the rock—we were met by the cold wind from the glacier, and very refreshing it was, I assure you. Below us still yawned the gaping Cirque, apparently so close under our feet that we might throw a stone into it. The guide traced Torrie’s progress along the bottom, but he was reduced to such an emmet in the depth below that my eyes could not discover him. Above our heads now opened out a wide expanse of snow and glacier, covering a very steep slope, and surmounted by the ridge of rock in which is the rent of Roland’s Brèche. The glacier is a high steep plane, like the roof of a house, and the most difficult part of the task is to ascend it. I sat down on the last rock rising, as it were, on the shore of this sea of ice, and after the guide had tied the crampons very firmly upon my feet, I grasped my pole and started. I was very tired by this time, and the steepness, together with the weight of the crampons, to which I was unaccustomed, and the snow hanging to them, rendered it very laborious; add to this, a cold rain and sleet came on, which made the snow and ice still more slippery and the foothold more difficult. As I toiled on, keeping as well as I could nearly up with the guide, and treading in his footsteps, two other travellers, who had started some hours before us, passed us, swiftly descending. How I envied them; but half-an-hour’s good hard work still remained for me. From the slipperiness of the snow (which had recently fallen), and the fatigue I felt, my steps no longer continued firm, my feet slipped from under me, and, after one or two slips, down I slid like an arrow, traversing in half a minute what had taken a quarter of an hour to surmount; indeed, I was in a fairway to the bottom of the glacier, but, recollecting some of my Swiss experience, I threw myself on my back, stretched wide my feet, digging in the heels, and driving the spike of my baton deep into the snow, and thus shortly brought myself to an anchor. In an instant Jacques was down from the height he had reached, beside me, and, laying hold of my hand, with stout arm and firm foot soon led me to the top of the ascent. The next stage of the business is to cross another division of the glacier nearly in a straight line, scarcely ascending at all, but the angle at which it lies is very much steeper than that passed already, so that I do not think it would be possible, except for a very skilful mountaineer, to ascend it, and the foot that once slipped in crossing it would go irretrievably to the bottom. Here my guide made me precede him, and gave me special injunctions to lift up my feet well, and set each foot down with a stamp, so as to make a good hole in the snow, sticking in my pole to a considerable depth before each step, adding after his admonitions, ‘Parcequ’il y a de danger ici.’ This mauvais pas was passed happily, safely, and quickly, and a few steps more brought me within the Brèche de Roland. The little ridge which I had seen below, eight miles off, like the blade of a small saw inserted in a grooved handle, now rose before me a mountainous wall of rock 300 feet high, and about 50 feet thick in the gap. The gap of Roland itself had expanded to a width of 180 feet. Before me, looking through this singular window, was Spain, a most uninviting prospect in the foreground of rugged ridges, and bare mountains, and valleys filled with stones and snow. The horizon, up to which rises the vast plain of Arragon, dimly seen in very clear weather, was now concealed. On the French side the Vignemale, the highest mountain in Southern France, and covered with glaciers, was also partly hidden. But except these all was clear, the sleety rain had ceased, the sun shone brightly forth, and a hundred peaks rose around me. Still, the absorbing feature is the Brèche itself, and the colossal wall, rising so high and so abruptly—literally a wall in proportion to the mountain, with slopes down on both sides like a house-roof. It is like the crested mane rising from the neck of a Grecian horse. The threshold of the Brèche shares in this peculiar character, so that I sat astride of the rocky ridge which forms the boundary line of two mighty kingdoms, with one leg in France and the other in Spain. The gratification of having succeeded, the elasticity of the mountain air, and a crust of bread with a piece of prepared chocolate cake, washed down by a draught from Jacques’ previously-despised wooden bottle, dissipated all fatigue. Jacques was distressed that he had no cup, but one or two good hearty pulls at the bottle-mouth, time about, and a couple of cigaritos—genuine from St. Sebastian—cemented our friendship, and we became great allies. The Brèche, notwithstanding its difficulty of access, serves as a pass from a small Spanish village into France, and my guide pointed out to me a nook in the rock where a flask of wine had been deposited by a party of three wild but handsome and Murillo-ish shepherds, whom we had met conducting two priests.

“We had accomplished the ascent in three hours, the time usually taken being four; the descent was effected in less than two, which is equally good speed.

“The first glacier was passed slowly and cautiously; the second we glided down in the fashion of a montagne Russe, resting on our spiked staffs to check the rapidity of our progress, I was right glad to get rid of the crampons when beyond the slope. The rest of the descent we leaped, trotted, walked, or scrambled down in the time mentioned, taking our time about those craggy buttresses of precipitous rock. I was surprised to find how nearly the guide followed the same track in descending; though quite imperceptible at a distance to my eye, yet I found myself treading on the very same stones I had trod on in mounting. I had agreed with Torrie that he should ride back to Luz quietly, and await me there, but not be surprised if he did not see me till next morning; but, having got through the walk so well and quickly, and finding my guide true to the backbone, I determined to ride back that night. Accordingly, after half-an-hour’s rest and a cup of coffee at Gavarnie, we were once more on horseback, and in less than three hours’ time the fourteen miles of mountain road was passed, and the courtyard of good and fat Madame Cazeaux’ inn was resounding to the crack of my whip. I was warmly welcomed by Torrie, as you may suppose, and after a supper of tea and fowl, retired to a good sound sleep, with no other discomfort than of considerable chafing, which, considering I do not think I ever rode thirty miles before in one day, was to be expected. The last four or five was in the dark, but I made the guide ride between me and the precipices.”

The first of Mr. John Murray’s Handbooks to the Continent, published 1836, included Holland, Belgium, and North Germany, and was followed at short intervals by South Germany, Switzerland—in which he was assisted by his intimate friend and fellow-traveller, William Brockedon, the artist, who was then engaged in preparing his own splendid work on ‘The Peaks, Passes, and Glaciers of the Alps’—and France. These were all written by Mr. Murray himself; but, as the series proceeded, it was necessary to call in the aid of other writers and travellers. Switzerland, which appeared in 1838, was followed in 1839 by Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and in 1840 by the Handbook to the East, the work of Mr. H. Parish, aided by Mr. Godfrey Levinge. In 1842 Sir Francis Palgrave completed the Guide to Northern Italy, while Central and Southern Italy were entrusted to Mr. Octavian Blewitt, for many years Secretary of the Royal Literary Fund.

This is not the place to give a detailed account of the developments which have been made in this well-known series since the death of the elder Mr. Murray. Suffice it to say, that the originator of the Handbooks has been fortunate enough to secure such able colleagues as Richard Ford for Spain, Sir Gardner Wilkinson for Egypt, Dr. Porter for Palestine, Sir George Bowen for Greece, Sir Lambert Playfair for Algiers and the Mediterranean, and Mr. George Dennis for Sicily, &c.

CHAPTER XXXVI. GEORGE BORROW—RICHARD FORD—HORACE TWISS—JOHN STERLING—MR. GLADSTONE—DEATH OF SOUTHEY, ETC.

In November 1840 a tall athletic gentleman in black called upon Mr. Murray offering a MS. for perusal and publication. The proposed author had been a travelling missionary of the Bible Society in Spain, though in early life he had prided himself in being an athlete, and had even taken lessons in pugilism from Thurtell, who was a fellow-townsman. George Borrow was a native of Dereham, Norfolk, but had wandered much in his youth, first following his father, who was a Captain of Militia. He went from south to north, from Kent to Edinburgh, where he was entered as pupil in the High School, and took part in the “bickers” so well described by Sir Walter Scott. Then the boy followed the regiment to Ireland, where he studied the Celtic dialect. From early youth he had a passion, and an extraordinary capacity, for learning languages, and on reaching manhood he was appointed agent to the Bible Society, and was sent to Russia to translate and introduce the Scriptures. While there he mastered the language, and learnt besides the Sclavonian and the gypsy dialects. He translated the Testament into the Tartar Mantchow, and published versions from English into thirty languages. He made successive visits into Russia, Norway, Turkey, Bohemia, Spain and Barbary. In fact, the sole of his foot never rested. While an agent for the Bible Society in Spain, he translated the Testament into Spanish, Portuguese, Rommany, and Basque—which language, it is said, the devil himself never could learn—and when he had learnt the Basque he acquired the name of Lavengro, or word-master.

Such was George Borrow when he called upon Murray to offer him the MSS. of his first book, ‘The Gypsies in Spain.’ Mr. Murray could not fail to be taken at first sight with this extraordinary man. He had a splendid physique, standing six feet two in his stockings, and he had brains as well as muscles, as his works sufficiently show. The book now submitted was of a very uncommon character, and neither the author nor the publisher were very sanguine about its success. Mr. Murray agreed, after perusal, to print and publish 750 copies of ‘The Gypsies in Spain,’ and divide the profits with the author. But this was only the beginning, and Borrow reaped much better remuneration from future editions of the volume. Indeed, the book was exceedingly well received, and met with a considerable sale; but not so great as his next work, ‘The Bible in Spain,’ which he was now preparing.

Mr. George Borrow to John Murray. Aug. 23rd, 1841.

“A queer book will be this same ‘Bible in Spain,’ containing all my queer adventures in that queer country whilst engaged in distributing the Gospel, but neither learning, nor disquisition, fine writing, or poetry. A book with such a Bible and of this description can scarcely fail of success. It will make two nice foolscap octavo volumes of about 500 pages each. I have not heard from Ford since I had last the pleasure of seeing you. Is his book out? I hope that he will not review the ‘Zincali’ until the Bible is forthcoming, when he may, if he please, kill two birds with one stone. I hear from Saint Petersburg that there is a notice of the ‘Zincali’ in the Revue Britannique; it has been translated into Russian. Do you know anything about it?”

Mr. George Borrow to John Murray.

Oulton Hall. Lowestoft, Jan. 1842. My dear Sir,

We are losing time. I have corrected seven hundred consecutive pages of MS., and the remaining two hundred will be ready in a fortnight. I do not think there will be a dull page in the whole book, as I have made one or two very important alterations; the account of my imprisonment at Madrid cannot fail, I think, of being particularly interesting. . . . During the last week I have been chiefly engaged in horse-breaking. A most magnificent animal has found his way to this neighbourhood—a half-bred Arabian. He is at present in the hands of a low horse-dealer, and can be bought for eight pounds, but no one will have him. It is said that he kills everybody who mounts him. I have been charming him, and have so far succeeded that he does not fling me more than once in five minutes. What a contemptible trade is the author’s compared with that of the jockey’s!

Mr. Borrow prided himself on being a horse-sorcerer, an art he learned among the gypsies, with whose secrets he claimed acquaintance. He whispered some unknown gibberish into their ears, and professed thus to tame them.

He proceeded with ‘The Bible in Spain.’ In the following month he sent to Mr. Murray the MS. of the first volume. To the general information as to the contents and interest of the volume, he added these words:—

Mr. George Borrow to John Murray. Feb. 1842.

“I spent a day last week with our friend Dawson Turner at Yarmouth. What capital port he keeps! He gave me some twenty years old, and of nearly the finest flavour that I ever tasted. There are few better things than old books, old pictures, and old port, and he seems to have plenty of all three.”

May 10th, 1842.

“I am coming up to London to-morrow, and intend to call at Albemarle Street. . . . I make no doubt that we shall be able to come to terms; I like not the idea of applying to second-rate people. I have been dreadfully unwell since I last heard from you—a regular nervous attack; at present I have a bad cough, caught by getting up at night in pursuit of poachers and thieves. A horrible neighbourhood this—not a magistrate that dares to do his duty.

“P.S.—Ford’s book not out yet?”

There seems to have been some difficulty about coming to terms. Borrow had promised his friends that his book should be out by October 1, and he did not wish them to be disappointed:—

Mr. George Borrow to John Murray.

July 4th, 1842.

Why this delay? Mr. Woodfall [the printer] tells me that the state of trade is wretched. Well and good! But you yourself told me so two months ago, when you wrote requesting that I would give you the preference, provided I had not made arrangements with other publishers. Between ourselves, my dear friend, I wish the state of the trade were ten times worse than it is, and then things would find their true level, and an original work would be properly appreciated, and a set of people who have no pretensions to write, having nothing to communicate but tea-table twaddle, could no longer be palmed off upon the public as mighty lions and lionesses. But to the question: What are your intentions with respect to ‘The Bible in Spain’? I am a frank man, and frankness never offends me. Has anybody put you out of conceit with the book? There is no lack of critics, especially in your neighbourhood. Tell me frankly, and I will drink your health in Rommany. Or, would the appearance of ‘The Bible’ on the first of October interfere with the Avatar, first or second, of some very Lion or Divinity, to whom George Borrow, who is neither, must, of course, give place? Be frank with me, my dear sir, and I will drink your health in Rommany and Madeira. In case of either of the above possibilities being the fact, allow me to assure you that I am quite willing to release you from your share of the agreement into which we entered. At the same time, I do not intend to let the work fall to the ground, as it has been promised to the public. Unless you go on with it, I shall remit Woodfall the necessary money for the purchase of paper, and when it is ready offer it to the world. If it be but allowed fair play, I have no doubt of its success. It is an original book, on an original subject. To-morrow, July 5, I am thirty-nine. Have the kindness to drink my health in Madeira.

Ever most sincerely yours, George Borrow .

Terms were eventually arranged to the satisfaction of both parties. Borrow informed Murray that he had sent the last proofs to the printer, and continued:—

Mr. George Borrow to John Murray.

Nov. 25th, 1842.

Only think, poor Allan Cunningham dead! A young man, only fifty-eight, strong and tall as a giant, might have lived to a hundred and one; but he bothered himself about the affairs of this world far too much. That statue shop [of Chantrey’s] was his bane! Took to bookmaking likewise—in a word, was too fond of Mammon. Awful death—no preparation—came literally upon him like a thief in the dark. I’m thinking of writing a short life of him; old friend of twenty years’ standing. I know a good deal about him; ‘Traditional Tales,’ his best work, first appeared in London Magazine. Pray send Dr. Bowring a copy of the Bible—another old friend. Send one to Ford, a capital fellow. God bless you—feel quite melancholy.

Ever yours, G. Borrow.

‘The Bible in Spain’ was published towards the end of the year, and created a sensation. It was praised by many critics, and condemned by others, for Borrow had his enemies in the press.

Mr. George Borrow to John Murray, Junior.

Lowestoft, December 1st, 1842. My dear Sir,

I received your kind letter containing the bills. It was very friendly in you, and I thank you, though, thank God, I have no Christmas bills to settle. Money, however, always acceptable. I dare say I shall be in London with the entrance of the New Year; I shall be most happy to see you, and still more your father, whose jokes do one good. I wish all the world were as gay as he; a gentleman drowned himself last week on my property. I wish he had gone somewhere else. I can’t get poor Allan out of my head. When I come up, intend to go and see his wife. What a woman! I hope our book will be successful. If so, shall put another on the stocks. Capital subject; early life, studies, and adventures; some account of my father, William Taylor Whiter, Big Ben, &c., &c. Had another letter from Ford; wonderful fellow; seems in high spirits. Yesterday read ‘Letters from the Baltic’; much pleased with it; very clever writer; critique in Despatch harsh and unjust; quite uncalled for; blackguard affair altogether.

I remain, dear Sir, ever yours, George Borrow .

December 31st, 1842. My dear Sir,

I have great pleasure in acknowledging your very kind letter of the 28th, and am happy to hear that matters are going on so prosperously. It is quite useless to write books unless they sell, and the public has of late become so fastidious that it is no easy matter to please it. With respect to the critique in the Times, I fully agree with you that it was harsh and unjust, and the passages selected by no means calculated to afford a fair idea of the contents of the work. A book, however, like ‘The Bible in Spain’ can scarcely be published without exciting considerable hostility, and I have been so long used to receiving hard knocks that they make no impression upon me. After all, the abuse of the Times is better than its silence; it would scarcely have attacked the work unless it had deemed it of some importance, and so the public will think. All I can say is, that I did my best, never writing but when the fit took me, and never delivering anything to my amanuensis but what I was perfectly satisfied with. You ask me my opinion of the review in the Quarterly. Very good, very clever, very neatly done. Only one fault to find—too laudatory. I am by no means the person which the reviewer had the kindness to represent me. I hope you are getting on well as to health; strange weather this, very unwholesome, I believe, both for man and beast: several people dead, and great mortality amongst the cattle. Am tolerably well myself, but get but little rest—disagreeable dreams—digestion not quite so good as I could wish; been on the water system—won’t do; have left it off, and am now taking lessons in singing. I hope to be in London towards the end of next month, and reckon much upon the pleasure of seeing you. On Monday I shall mount my horse and ride into Norwich to pay a visit to a few old friends. Yesterday the son of our excellent Dawson Turner rode over to see me; they are all well, it seems. Our friend Joseph Gurney, however, seems to be in a strange way—diabetes, I hear. I frequently meditate upon ‘The Life,’ and am arranging the scenes in my mind. With best remembrances to Mrs. M. and all your excellent family,

Truly and respectfully yours, George Borrow .

Mr. Richard Ford’s forthcoming work—‘The Handbook for Spain,’ about which Mr. Borrow had been making so many enquiries, was the result of many years’ hard riding and constant investigation throughout Spain, one of the least known of all European countries at that time. Mr. Ford called upon Mr. Murray, after ‘The Bible in Spain’ had been published, and a copy of the work was presented to him. He was about to start on his journey to Heavitree, near Exeter. A few days after his arrival Mr. Murray received the following letter from him:—

Mr. Richard Ford to John Murray.

“I read Borrow with great delight all the way down per rail, and it shortened the rapid flight of that velocipede. You may depend upon it that the book will sell, which, after all, is the rub. It is the antipodes of Lord Carnarvon, and yet how they tally in what they have in common, and that is much—the people, the scenery of Galicia, and the suspicions and absurdities of Spanish Jacks-in-office, who yield not in ignorance or insolence to any kind of red-tapists, hatched in the hot-beds of jobbery and utilitarian mares’-nests . . . Borrow spares none of them. I see he hits right and left, and floors his man wherever he meets him. I am pleased with his honest sincerity of purpose and his graphic abrupt style. It is like an old Spanish ballad, leaping in res medias, going from incident to incident, bang, bang, bang, hops, steps, and jumps like a cracker, and leaving off like one, when you wish he would give you another touch or coup de grâce. . . He really sometimes puts me in mind of Gil Blas; but he has not the sneer of the Frenchman, nor does he gild the bad. He has a touch of Bunyan, and, like that enthusiastic tinker, hammers away, à la Gitano, whenever he thinks he can thwack the Devil or his man-of-all-work on earth—the Pope. Therein he resembles my friend and everybody’s friend—Punch—who, amidst all his adventures, never spares the black one. However, I am not going to review him now; for I know that Mr. Lockhart has expressed a wish that I should do it for the Quarterly Review. Now, a wish from my liege master is a command. I had half engaged myself elsewhere, thinking that he did not quite appreciate such a trump as I know Borrow to be. He is as full of meat as an egg, and a fresh laid one—not one of your Inglis breed, long addled by over-bookmaking. Borrow will lay you golden eggs, and hatch them after the ways of Egypt; put salt on his tail and secure him in your coop, and beware how any poacher coaxes him with ‘raisins’ or reasons out of the Albemarle preserves. When you see Mr. Lockhart tell him that I will do the paper. I owe my entire allegiance to the Q. R. flag . . . Perhaps my understanding the full force of this ‘gratia’ makes me over partial to this wild Missionary; but I have ridden over the same tracks without the tracts, seen the same people, and know that he is true, and I believe that he believes all that he writes to be true.”

Mr. Lockhart himself, however, wrote the review for the Quarterly (No. 141, December 1842). It was a temptation that he could not resist, and his article was most interesting. ‘The Gypsies in Spain’ and ‘The Bible in Spain’ went through many editions, and there is still a large demand for both works. Before we leave George Borrow we will give a few extracts from his letters, which, like his books, were short, abrupt, and graphic. He was asked to become a member of the Royal Institution.

Mr. George Borrow to John Murray. Feb. 25th, 1843.

“I should like to become a member. The thing would just suit me, more especially as they do not want clever men, but safe men. Now, I am safe enough; ask the Bible Society, whose secrets I have kept so much to their satisfaction, that they have just accepted at my hands an English Gypsy Gospel gratis. What would the Institution expect me to write? I have exhausted Spain and the Gypsies, though an essay on Welsh language and literature might suit, with an account of the Celtic tongue. Or, won’t something about the ancient North and its literature be more acceptable? I have just received an invitation to join the Ethnological Society (who are they?), which I have declined. I am at present in great demand; a bishop has just requested me to visit him. The worst of these bishops is that they are skin-flints, saving for their families. Their cuisine is bad, and their port wine execrable, and as for their cigars!—I say, do you remember those precious ones of the Sanctuary? A few days ago one of them turned up again. I found it in my great-coat pocket, and thought of you. I have seen the article in the Edinburgh about the Bible—exceedingly brilliant and clever, but rather too epigrammatic, quotations scanty and not correct. Ford is certainly a most astonishing fellow; he quite flabbergasts me—handbooks, reviews, and I hear that he has just been writing a ‘Life of Velasquez’ for the ‘Penny Cyclopaedia’!”

Oulton Hall, Lowestoft, March 13th, 1843.

“So the second edition is disposed of. Well and good. Now, my dear friend, have the kindness to send me an account of the profits of it and let us come to a settlement. Up to the present time I do assure you I have not made a penny by writing, what with journeys to London and tarrying there. Basta! I hate to talk of money matters.

“Let them call me a nonentity if they will; I believe that some of those who say I am a phantom would alter their tone provided they were to ask me to a good dinner; bottles emptied and fowls devoured are not exactly the feats of a phantom: no! I partake more of the nature of a Brownie or Robin Goodfellow—goblins, ’tis true, but full of merriment and fun, and fond of good eating and drinking. Occasionally I write a page or two of my life. I am now getting my father into the Earl of Albemarle’s regiment, in which he was captain for many years. If I live, and my spirits keep up tolerably well, I hope that within a year I shall be able to go to press with something which shall beat the ‘Bible in Spain.’”

And a few days later:—

“I have received your account for the two editions. I am perfectly satisfied. We will now, whenever you please, bring out a third edition.

“The book which I am at present about will consist, if I live to finish it, of a series of Rembrandt pictures, interspersed here and there with a Claude. I shall tell the world of my parentage, my early thoughts and habits, how I became a sap-engro, or viper-catcher: my wanderings with the regiment in England, Scotland, and Ireland, in which last place my jockey habits first commenced: then a great deal about Norwich, Billy Taylor, Thurtell, &c.: how I took to study and became a lav-engro. What do you think of this for a bill of fare? I am now in a blacksmith’s shop in the south of Ireland taking lessons from the Vulcan in horse charming and horse-shoe making. By the bye, I wish I were acquainted with Sir Robert Peel. I could give him many a useful hint with respect to Ireland and the Irish. I know both tolerably well. Whenever there’s a row, I intend to go over with Sidi Habesmith and put myself at the head of a body of volunteers.”

A few of the works may be mentioned which Mr. Murray published in 1841, 1842, and the beginning of 1843. Sir Charles Fellows had continued his ‘Excavations in Lycia,’ and published his second journal in 1841, containing “more recent discoveries in Ancient Lycia; being a journal kept during a second excursion in Asia Minor.” The results are to be seen in the splendid array of Lycian temples and monuments preserved in the British Museum.

While arranging for the publication of Mr. Horace Twiss’s ‘Life of the Earl of Eldon,’ Mr. Murray wrote to Mr. Twiss:—

John Murray to Mr. Twiss. May 11th, 1842.

“I am very sorry to say that the publishing of books at this time involves nothing but loss, and that I have found it absolutely necessary to withdraw from the printers every work that I had in the press, and to return to the authors any MS. for which they required immediate publication.”

Mr. Murray nevertheless agreed to publish the ‘Life of Eldon’ on commission, and it proved very successful, going through several editions.

Another work offered to Mr. Murray in 1841, was ‘The Moor and the Loch,’ by John Colquhoun, of Leney House, Callander. He had published the first edition at Edinburgh through Mr. Blackwood; and, having had some differences with that publisher, he now proposed to issue the second edition in London. He wrote to Mr. Murray desiring him to undertake the work, and received the following reply:—

John Murray to Mr. Colquhoun.

March 16th, 1841. Sir,

I should certainly have had much pleasure in being the original publisher of your very interesting work ‘The Moor and the Loch,’ but I have a very great dislike to the appearance even of interfering with any other publisher. Having glass windows, I must not throw stones. With Blackwood, indeed, I have long had particular relations, and they for several years acted as my agents in Edinburgh; so pray have the kindness to confide to me the cause of your misunderstanding with that house, and let me have the satisfaction of at least trying in the first place to settle the matter amicably. In any case, however, you may rely upon all my means to promote the success of your work, the offer of which has made me, dear Sir,

Your obliged and faithful Servant, John Murray .

Mr. Colquhoun to John Murray.

March 20th, 1841. Dear Sir,

I am much obliged by your note which I received yesterday. I shall endeavour to see you directly, and when I explain the cause of my dissatisfaction with Messrs. Blackwood, I am sure you will at once see that it would be impossible for us to go on comfortably together with my second edition; and even if any adjustment was brought about, I feel convinced that the book would suffer. I do not mean to imply anything against the Messrs. Blackwood as men of business, and should be sorry to be thus understood; but this case has been a peculiar one, and requires too long an explanation for a letter. In the meantime I have written to you under the strictest confidence, as the Messrs. B. are not aware of my intention of bringing out a second edition at the present time, or of my leaving them. My reasons, however, are such that my determination cannot be altered; and I hope, after a full explanation with you, that we shall at once agree to publish the book with the least possible delay. I shall be most happy to return your note, which you may afterwards show to Messrs. B., and I may add that had you altogether refused to publish my book, it could in no way have affected my decision of leaving them.

I remain, dear Sir, faithfully yours, John Colquhoun.

Mr. Colquhoun came up expressly to London, and after an interview with Mr. Murray, who again expressed his willingness to mediate with the Edinburgh publishers, Mr. Colquhoun repeated his final decision, and Mr. Murray at length agreed to publish the second edition of ‘The Moor and the Loch.’ It may be added that in the end Mr. Colquhoun did, as urged by Murray, return to the Blackwoods, who still continue to publish his work.

Allan Cunningham ended his literary life by preparing the ‘Memoirs’ of his friend Sir David Wilkie. Shortly before he undertook the work he had been prostrated by a stroke of paralysis, but on his partial recovery he proceeded with the memoirs, and the enfeebling effects of his attack may be traced in portions of the work. Towards the close of his life Wilkie had made a journey to the East, had painted the then Sultan at Constantinople, and afterwards made his way to Smyrna, Rhodes, Beyrout, Jaffa, and Jerusalem. He returned through Egypt, and at Alexandria he embarked on board the Oriental steamship for England. While at Alexandria, he had complained of illness, which increased, partly in consequence of his intense sickness at sea, and he died off Gibraltar on the 1st June, 1841, when his body was committed to the deep. Turner’s splendid picture of the scene was one of Wilkie’s best memorials. A review of Allan Cunningham’s work, by Mr. Lockhart, appeared in the Quarterly, No. 144. Previous to its appearance he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

February 25th, 1843. Dear Murray,

I don’t know if you have read much of ‘The Life of Wilkie.’ All Cunningham’s part seems to be wretched, but in the ‘Italian and Spanish Journals and Letters’ Wilkie shines out in a comparatively new character. He is a very eloquent and, I fancy, a deep and instructive critic on painting; at all events, Vol. ii. is full of very high interest . . . Is there anywhere a good criticism on the alteration that Wilkie’s style exhibited after his Italian and Spanish tours? The general impression always was, and I suppose will always be, that the change was for the worse. But it will be a nice piece of work to account for an unfortunate change being the result of travel and observation, which we now own to have produced such a stock of admirable theoretical disquisition on the principles of the Art. I can see little to admire or like in the man Wilkie. Some good homely Scotch kindness for kith and kin, and for some old friends too perhaps; but generally the character seems not to rise above the dull prudentialities of a decent man in awe of the world and the great, and awfully careful about No. I. No genuine enjoyment, save in study of Art, and getting money through that study. He is a fellow that you can’t suppose ever to have been drunk or in love—too much a Presbyterian Elder for either you or me.

In the beginning of 1841, Mr. John Sterling, who had already published poetry in Blackwood’s Magazine, and through Moxon, but without attracting much attention, wrote to Murray about the publication of a new poem, entitled ‘The Election,’ which consisted, in its first draught, of about two thousand verses. Murray so far departed from his usual rule not to publish poetry, as to intimate to Mr. Sterling’s father—Mr. Edward Sterling, then one of the leader-writers for the Times —that he would agree to print from 750 to 1250 copies of ‘The Election,’ at half profits. The number was eventually limited to 750 copies, and the author wrote to Mr. Murray, that he was quite satisfied with his arrangements, and that he “considered it a great advantage to his poem to be published by him.” Thomas Carlyle, in his ‘Life of Sterling,’ refers to the poem. It might, he said, “be called the mock-heroic, or sentimental Hudibrastic, reminding one, a little, too, of Wieland’s ‘Oberon’—it had touches of true drollery, combined not ill with grave, clear insight; showed spirit everywhere, and a plainly improved power of execution.” ‘The Election—a Poem,’ was published at the end of 1841, but notwithstanding Carlyle’s eulogy, it did not prove a success.

“This new poetic Duodecimo,” says Carlyle, “as the last had done and as the next also did, met with little or no recognition from the world; which was not very inexcusable on the world’s part; though many a poem with far less proof of merit than this offers, has run, when the accidents favoured it, through its tens of editions, and raised the writer to the demigods for a year or two, if not longer.”

Mr. Sterling had, about this time, an opportunity of meeting Mr. Lockhart, and his impression of him confirms the opinion already given of the kindness of the man.

“I made my first oral acquaintance with Lockhart of the Quarterly, and found him as neat, clear, and cutting a brain as you would expect; but with an amount of knowledge, good nature, and liberal anti-bigotry, that would surprise many. The tone of his children towards him seemed to me decisive of his real kindness.”

Mr. Murray received another communication from Mr. Sterling (16th December, 1841). “Not,” he said, “respecting his own literary affairs, but those of a friend.” The friend was Mr. John Stuart Mill, son of the historian of British India. He had completed his work on Logic, of which Mr. Sterling had the highest opinion. He said it had been the “labour of many years of a singularly subtle, patient, and comprehensive mind. It will be our chief speculative monument of this age.” Mr. Mill himself addressed Mr. Murray, first on the 20th December, 1841, while he was preparing the work for the press, and again in January and February, 1842, when he had forwarded the MS. to the publisher, and requested his decision. We find, however, that Mr. Murray was very ill at the time; that he could not give the necessary attention to the subject; and that the MS. was eventually returned.

The Quarterly went on as usual. Lockhart often exceeded even himself in the spirit and entertainment of his articles. In No. 137 he wrote a paper on the Copyright Question:—

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray. Dec. 13th, 1841.

“As to my own article, you can, if you please, reject it in toto; but if so, I am pledged to Mr. Wordsworth, and it must go to Blackwood. I don’t at present feel at all disposed to take thought about Peel’s or any other politician’s opinion. I have studied the subject, and so has Wordsworth, who is at least as likely to study any question to advantage as Sir Robert Peel. I propose no plan for an Act of Parliament. But I think I have shown that unless more protection be given to authors and publishers—whose interests I have treated as identical, which they are—our literature must expire in a muddled heap of fraudulent and worthless compilations, and base appeals to the lower passions. After all, just ask yourself whether the Editor of the Quarterly Review has not a right to express his own deliberate opinion on a subject of this sort whenever he pleases? It seems to me that if he has not that right, he has none.”

Mr. Thomas Mitchell also wrote to Mr. Murray on the same subject:—

Mr. Mitchell to John Murray. Jan. 15th, 1842.

“I do sincerely hope that whatever may be the fate of the next Copyright Bill, which, it seems, is to be introduced to the new Parliament, as far as authors are concerned, that effectual steps will be taken to secure publishers from the infamous piracies of the foreign market. Two years ago, I remember that a travelled friend told me that you had yourself suffered largely from this conduct, which is as disgraceful to our legislature as ruinous to individuals. Protection to publishers would, I believe, be the best protection to nine-tenths of us authors. I don’t know who is the author of the paper in the Quarterly on the subject, but I am reading it a second time from the interest which I feel in it.”

* Mr. Mitchell made very little by his authorship. Towards the end of his days, when he found his powers failing, Sir Robert Peel had the generosity to place £150 at his disposal. Mr. Mitchell was then preparing an edition of Aristophanes for the use of schools. Mr. Lockhart, with whom he was intimate, was much annoyed to find that he had introduced so many political notions into the ‘Notes to Aristophanes.’ “Nothing,” he wrote to Murray, “can be in worse taste than the mingling up of ephemeral politics with the ‘Notes on Aristophanes.’ I declare I never could have fancied anything so preposterous as allusions to Benjamin Hawes, soap-boiler, M.P. for Lambeth, and others of that order, in the sheets now returned. . . . What should we think of an edition of Aristophanes stuffed full of Wilkes or Dr. Sacheverell? But you must not tell T. M. that I consider his wit and humour anything but Aristophanic. Worse drivelling have I seldom encountered than all this about the savants of Birmingham. Why make a School Book a Tory Book? You won’t get it into Rugby.” Before the school book was issued, all the offensive political notes were expurgated.

When Copyright became the subject of legislation the following year, Mr. Murray received a letter from Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. Gladstone to John Murray.

Whitehall, February 6th, 1843. My dear Sir,

I beg leave to thank you for the information contained in and accompanying your note which reached me on Saturday.

The view with which the clauses relating to copyright in the Customs’ Act were framed was that those interested in the exclusion of pirated works would take care to supply the Board of Customs from time to time with lists of all works under copyright which were at’ all likely to be reprinted abroad, and that this would render the law upon the whole much more operative and more fair than an enormous catalogue of all the works entitled to the privilege, of which it would be found very difficult for the officers at the ports to manage the use.

Directions in conformity with the Acts of last Session will be sent to the Colonies.

But I cannot omit to state that I learn from your note with great satisfaction, that steps are to be taken here to back the recent proceedings of the Legislature. I must not hesitate to express my conviction that what Parliament has done will be fruitless, unless the law be seconded by the adoption of such modes of publication, as will allow the public here and in the colonies to obtain possession of new and popular English works at moderate prices. If it be practicable for authors and publishers to make such arrangements, I should hope to see a great extension of our book trade, as well as much advantage to literature, from the measures that have now been taken and from those which I trust we shall be enabled to take in completion of them; but unless the proceedings of the trade itself adapt and adjust themselves to the altered circumstances, I can feel no doubt that we shall relapse into or towards the old state of things; the law will be first evaded and then relaxed.

I remain, my dear Sir, Faithfully yours, W. E. Gladstone.

Shortly after his second marriage, Southey’s intellect began to fail him, and he soon sank into a state of mental imbecility. He would wander about his library, take down a book, look into it, and then put it back again, but was incapable of work. When Mr. Murray sent him the octavo edition of the ‘Peninsular War,’ his wife answered:—

Mrs. Southey to John Murray.

Greta Hall, May 15th, 1840.

If the word pleasure were not become to me as a dead letter, I should tell you with how much I took possession of your kind gift. But I may tell you truly that it gratified, and more than gratified me, by giving pleasure to my dear husband, as a token of your regard for him, so testified towards myself. The time is not far passed when we should have rejoiced together like children over such an acquisition.

Yours very truly and thankfully, Car. Southey.

May 23rd, 1840. Dear Sir,

Very cordially I return your friendly salutations, feeling, as I do, that every manifestation of kindness for my husband’s sake is more precious to me than any I could receive for my own exclusively. Two-and-twenty years ago, when he wished to put into your hands, as publisher, a first attempt of mine, of which he thought better than it deserved, he little thought that in so doing he was endeavouring to forward the interests of his future wife; of her for whom it was appointed (a sad but honoured lot) to be the companion of his later days, over which it has pleased God to cast the “shadow before” of that “night in which no man can work.” But twelve short months ago he was cheerfully anticipating (in the bright buoyancy of his happy nature) a far other companionship for the short remainder of our earthly sojourn; never forgetting, however, that ours must be short at the longest, and that “in the midst of life we are in death.” He desires me to thank you for your kind expressions towards him, and to be most kindly remembered to you. Your intimation of the favourable progress of his 8vo ‘Book of the Church’ gave him pleasure, and he thanks you for so promptly attending to his wishes about a neatly bound set of his ‘Peninsular War.’ Accept my assurances of regard, and believe me to be, dear Sir,

Yours very truly, Caroline Southey.

On September 17th, 1840, Mr. Murray sent to Mr. Southey a draft for £259, being the balance for his ‘Book of the Church,’ and informed him that he would be pleased to know that another edition was called for. Mrs. Southey replied:—

Mrs. Southey to John Murray.

“He made no remark on your request to be favoured with any suggestions he might have to offer. My sad persuasion is that Robert Southey’s works have received their last revision and correction from his mind and pen.”

Greta Hall, October 5th, 1840. Dear Sir,

I will not let another post go out, without conveying to you my thanks for your very kind letter last night received. It will gratify you to know that its contents (the copy of the critique included), aroused and fixed Mr. Southey’s attention more than anything that has occurred for months past—gratifying him, I believe, far more than anything more immediately concerning himself could have done. “Tell Murray,” he said, “I am very much obliged to him.” It is long since he has sent a message to friend or relation.

Now let me say for myself that I am very thankful to you—very thankful to my indulgent reviewer—and that if I could yet feel interest about anything of my own writing, I should be pleased and encouraged by his encomium—as well as grateful for it. But if it did not sound thanklessly, I should say, “too late—too late—it comes too late!” and that bitter feeling came upon me so suddenly, as my eyes fell upon the passage in question, that they overflowed with tears before it was finished.

But he did take interest in it, at least for a few moments, and so it was not quite too late; and (doing as I know he would have me), I shall act upon your most kind and friendly advice, and transmit it to Blackwood, who will, I doubt not, be willingly guided by it.

It was one of my husband’s pleasant visions before our marriage, and his favourite prospect, to publish a volume of poetry conjointly with me, not weighing the disproportion of talent.

I must tell you that immediately on receiving the Review, I should have written to express my sense of your kindness, and of the flattering nature of the critique; but happening to tell Miss Southey and her brother that you had sent it me, as I believed, as an obliging personal attention, they assured me I was mistaken, and that the numbers were only intended for “their set.” Fearing, therefore, to arrogate to myself more than was designed for me, I kept silence; and now expose my simplicity rather than leave myself open to the imputation of unthankfulness. Mr. Southey desires to be very kindly remembered to you, and I am, my dear Sir,

Very thankfully and truly yours, Car. Southey.

P.S.—I had almost forgotten to thank you for so kindly offering to send the Review to any friends of mine, I may wish to gratify. I will accept the proffered favour, and ask you to send one addressed to Miss Burnard, Shirley, Southampton, Hants. The other members of my family and most of my friends take the Q. R., or are sure of seeing it. This last number is an excellent one.

A final letter reached Mr. Murray from Mrs. Southey announcing the approaching end of Robert Southey’s life:—

Mrs. Southey to John Murray. Feb. 27th, 1843.

“There has been little alteration in my husband’s state until about three weeks ago, when he had a slight—a very slight—apoplectic seizure. He was promptly relieved, and there has been no recurrence of alarming symptoms. But the warning was an impressive one.”

As in the case of Sir Walter Scott, the seizures returned. Southey became less able to resist them, and died on the 21st of March, 1843.

Thomas Mitchell was much distressed by the deaths of his old friends.

“Disease and death,” he wrote to Murray, “seem to be making no small havoc among our literary men—Maginn, Cunningham, Basil Hall, and poor Southey, worst of all. Lockhart’s letters of late have made me very uneasy, too, about him. Has he yet returned from Scotland, and is he at all improved?”

Lockhart, however, was still working as industriously as usual for the Quarterly. When he was ill or absent, he left the Review in charge of the indefatigable Mr. Croker. Theodore Hook was one of those literary men who had recently departed. Mr. Lockhart wrote for the May number of the Quarterly an account of his life, which proved to be one of the most charming and entertaining of his compositions.

Mr. Lockhart to John Murray.

Mar. 28th, 1843. Dear M.,

I am sorry indeed to find that you have been so unwell. Let me hope you are now yourself, and that we shall meet now and then. I have been myself neither well nor in good spirits, but I worked hard for a while on Hook’s papers, and am willing to work again at Wilkie’s’,* though I don’t like the character. It wants generosity and openness, and without these qualities who can care much about any man? The real merit is his critiques on Art. If you encourage me, after reading my sketch of Theodore Hook, I will try. but I don’t often please you, I know, and have little heart, therefore, for writing with a view to Q. R.

Many important books about Afghanistan were published about this time. Mr. Murray had already brought out a ‘Residence in Cabool,’ by Sir Alexander Burnes, afterwards murdered in that city, and this was in due course succeeded by Lieutenant Eyre’s ‘Military Operations in Cabool,’ which appeared in January 1843. Mr. Murray presented a copy of the work to Mr. W. E. Gladstone, who, after perusing it, wrote to him:—

“I have read it with great pain and shame, which are, as I fear one must say in such a case, the tests of its merits as a work. May another occasion for such a narrative never arise!”

But the most important work of the kind was Lady Sale’s ‘Journal.’ Sir Robert H. Sale was the general who commanded the British forces sent to redeem the British name in Afghanistan. He forced the Jugdullock Pass, stormed the fort of Mamoo Khail, and retreated to Jellalabad, where, after a siege by the Afghan troops, he attacked and utterly routed them. Finally, he advanced upon Cabool, and contributed to its capture. Lady Sale’s narrative related to the memorable retreat from Afghanistan, and will not soon be forgotten.

Sir Francis B. Head, in acknowledging the receipt of the book, wrote:—

* The article on Wilkie appeared in the following number (144).

Sir F. B. Head to John Murray.

April 19th, 1843.

Your kind present of ‘Lady Sale’ reached me on the day of the arrival of my eldest son from India after an absence of seven years. He has returned to me in such robust health that, to tell you the truth, I have been too overjoyed to read, or do anything rational but look at him. Tomorrow, however, I shall leave my young man for your old woman, of whose charms I can give you the following proof. I was at a committee this morning, when I heard a gentleman say: “My friend, Mr. Bouverie, got hold of Lady Sale’s book yesterday evening, and sat reading it till five o’clock this morning.” In fact, he passed the night with Lady Sale instead of with his own wife. I mention this as one of the sins for which, as a publisher, you will some of these days have to account.

Yours, my dear friend, very sincerely, F. B. Head.

Mr. Lockhart, on receiving his copy of the work (April 3rd, 1843), wrote that he thought—

“It must have a great vogue, especially among the ladies. I am truly delighted,” he continued, “to hear that you are yourself once more, and that news will do much good, I assure you, as well as myself. I dined yesterday with Lord Mahon, where we had only Peel, Brougham, Hallam and Follet. Brougham charming, and the Premier very funny, but looking, I thought, very worn and bloated, and not happy until he had had some wine.”

This was the last important work that Mr. Murray published: in the autumn of 1842 his health began to fail rapidly, and he found it necessary to live much out of London, and to try various watering-places; but although he rallied at times sufficiently to return to his business for short periods, he never recovered, and passed away in sleep on the 27th of June, 1843, at the age of sixty-five.

CHAPTER XXXVII. JOHN MURRAY AS A PUBLISHER.

In considering the career of John Murray, the reader can hardly fail to be struck with the remarkable manner in which his personal qualities appeared to correspond with the circumstances out of which he built his fortunes.

When he entered his profession, the standard of conduct in every department of life connected with the publishing trade was determined by aristocratic ideas. The unwritten laws which regulated the practice of bookselling in the eighteenth century were derived from the Stationers’ Company. Founded as it had been on the joint principles of commercial monopoly and State control, this famous organization had long lost its old vitality. But it had bequeathed to the bookselling community a large portion of its original spirit, both in the practice of co-operative publication which produced the ‘Trade Books,’ so common in the last century, and in that deep-rooted belief in the perpetuity of copyright, which only received its death-blow from the celebrated judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Donaldson v. Becket in 1774. Narrow and exclusive as they may have been in their relation to the public interest, there can be no doubt that these traditions helped to constitute, in the dealings of the booksellers among themselves, a standard of honour which put a certain curb on the pursuit of private gain. It was this feeling which provoked such intense indignation in the trade against the publishers who took advantage of their strict legal rights to invade what was generally regarded as the property of their brethren; while the sense of what was due to the credit, as well as to the interest, of a great organized body, made the associated booksellers zealous in the promotion of all enterprises likely to add to the fame of English literature.

Again, there was something, in the best sense of the word, aristocratic in the position of literature itself. Patronage, indeed, had declined. The patron of the early days of the century, who, like Halifax, sought in the Universities or in the London Coffee-houses for literary talent to strengthen the ranks of political party, had disappeared, together with the later and inferior order of patron, who, after the manner of Bubb Dodington, flattered his social pride by maintaining a retinue of poetical clients at his country seat. The nobility themselves, absorbed in politics or pleasure, cared far less for letters than their fathers in the reigns of Anne and the first two Georges. Hence, as Johnson said, the bookseller had become the Mæcenas of the age; but not the bookseller of Grub Street. To be a man of letters was no longer a reproach. Johnson himself had been rewarded with a literary pension, and the names of almost all the distinguished scholars of the latter part of the eighteenth century—Warburton, the two Wartons, Lowth, Burke, Hume, Gibbon, Robertson—belong to men who either by birth or merit were in a position which rendered them independent of literature as a source of livelihood. The author influenced the public rather than the public the author, while the part of the bookseller was restricted to introducing and distributing to society the works which the scholar had designed.

Naturally enough, from such conditions arose a highly aristocratic standard of taste. The centre of literary judgment passed from the half-democratic society of the Coffeehouse to the dining-room of scholars like Cambridge or Beauclerk; and opinion, formed from the brilliant conversation at such gatherings as the Literary Club, afterwards circulated among the public either in the treatises of individual critics, or in the pages of the two leading Monthly Reviews. The society from which it proceeded, though not in the strict sense of the word fashionable, was eminently refined and widely representative; it included the politician, the clergyman, the artist, the connoisseur, and was permeated with the necessary leaven of feminine intuition, ranging from the observation of Miss Burney or the vivacity of Mrs. Thrale, to the stately morality of Mrs. Montagu and Mrs. Hannah More.

On the other hand, the whole period of Murray’s life as a publisher, extending, to speak broadly, from the first French Revolution to almost the eve of the French Revolution of 1848, was characterised in a marked degree by the advance of Democracy. In all directions there was an uprising of the spirit of individual liberty against the prescriptions of established authority. In Politics the tendency is apparent in the progress of the Reform movement. In Commerce it was marked by the inauguration of the Free Trade movement. In Literature it made itself felt in the great outburst of poetry at the beginning of the century, and in the assertion of the superiority of individual genius to the traditional laws of form.

The effect produced by the working of the democratic spirit within the aristocratic constitution of society and taste may without exaggeration be described as prodigious. At first sight, indeed, there seems to be a certain abruptness in the transition from the highly-organized society represented in Boswell’s ‘Life of Johnson,’ to the philosophical retirement of Wordsworth and Coleridge. It is only when we look beneath the surface that we see the old traditions still upheld by a small class of Conservative writers, including Campbell, Rogers, and Crabbe, and, as far as style is concerned, by some of the romantic innovators, Byron, Scott, and Moore. But, generally speaking, the age succeeding the first French Revolution, exhibits the triumph of individualism. Society itself is penetrated by new ideas; literature becomes fashionable; men of position are no longer ashamed to be known as authors, nor women of distinction afraid to welcome men of letters in their drawing-rooms. On all sides the excitement and curiosity of the times is reflected in the demand for poems, novels, essays, travels, and every kind of imaginative production, under the name of belles lettres.

As in the sphere of poetry this strange blend of democratic energy and aristocratic refinement found its fullest expression in the works of Byron, so in the sphere of taste it met with its most congenial interpreter in Murray. A certain romantic spirit of enterprise shows itself in his character at the very outset of his career. Tied to a partner of a petty and timorous disposition, he seizes an early opportunity to rid himself of the incubus. With youthful ardour he begs of a veteran author to be allowed the privilege of publishing, as his first undertaking, a work which he himself genuinely admired. He refuses to be bound by mere trading calculations. “The business of a publishing bookseller,” he writes to a correspondent, “is not in his shop, or even in his connections, but in his brains.” In all his professional conduct a largeness of view is apparent. A new conception of the scope of his trade seems early to have risen in his mind, and he was perhaps the first member of the Stationers’ craft to separate the business of bookselling from that of publishing. When Constable in Edinburgh sent him “a miscellaneous order of books from London,” he replied: “Country orders are a branch of business which I have ever totally declined as incompatible with my more serious plans as a publisher.”

With ideas of this kind, it may readily be imagined that Murray was not what is usually called “a good man of business,” a fact of which he was well aware, as the following incident, which occurred in his later years, amusingly indicates.

The head of one of the larger firms with which he dealt came in person to Albemarle Street to receive payment of his account. This was duly handed to him in bills, which, by some carelessness, he lost on his way home. He thereupon wrote to Mr. Murray, requesting him to advertise in his own name for the lost property. Murray’s reply was as follows:—

Twickenham, October 26, 1841. My dear ——,

I am exceedingly sorry for the vexatious, though, I hope, only temporary loss which you have met with; but I have so little character for being a man of business, that if the bills were advertised in my name it would be publicly confirming the suspicion—but in your own name, it will be only considered as a very extraordinary circumstance, and I therefore give my impartial opinion in favour of the latter mode. Remaining, my dear ——,

Most truly yours, John Murray .

The possession of ordinary commercial shrewdness, however, was by no means the quality most essential for successful publishing at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Both Constable and Ballantyne were men of great cleverness and aptitude for business; but, wanting the higher endowments of head and heart, they were unable to resist the whirl of excitement accompanying an unprecedented measure of financial success. Their ruin was as rapid as their rise. To Murray, on the other hand, perhaps their inferior in the average arts of calculation, a vigorous native sense, tempering a genuine enthusiasm for what was excellent in literature, gave precisely that mixture of dash and steadiness which was needed to satisfy the complicated requirements of the public taste.

A high sense of rectitude is apparent in all his business transactions; and Charles Knight did him no more than justice in saying that he had “left an example of talent and honourable conduct which would long be a model for those who aim at distinction in the profession.” He would have nothing to do with what was poor and shabby. When it was suggested to him, as a young publisher, that his former partner was ready to bear part of the risk in a contemplated undertaking, he refused to associate his fortunes with a man who conducted his business on underhand principles. “I cannot allow my name to stand with his, because he undersells all other publishers at the regular and advertised prices.” Boundless as was his admiration for the genius of Scott and Byron, he abandoned one of the most cherished objects of his ambition—to be the publisher of new works by the author of Waverley—rather than involve himself further in transactions which he foresaw must lead to discredit and disaster; and, at the risk of a quarrel, strove to recall Byron to the ways of sound literature, when through his wayward genius he seemed to be drifting into an unworthy course.

In the same way, when the disagreement between the firms of Constable and Longmans, seemed likely to turn to his own advantage, instead of making haste to seize the golden opportunity, he exerted himself to effect a reconciliation between the disputants, by pointing out what he considered the just and reasonable view of their mutual interests. The letters which, on this occasion, he addressed respectively to Mr. A. G. Hunter, to the Constables, and to the Longmans, are models of good sense and manly rectitude. Nor was his conduct to Constable after the downfall of the latter, less worthy of admiration. Deeply as Constable had injured him by the reckless conduct of his business, Murray not only retained no ill-feeling against him, but, anxious simply to help a brother in misfortune, resigned in his favour, in a manner full of the most delicate consideration, his own claim to a valuable copyright. The same warmth of heart and disinterested friendship appears in his efforts to re-establish the affairs of the Robinsons after the failure of that firm. Yet, remarkable as he was for his loyalty to his comrades, he was no less distinguished by his spirit and independence. No man without a very high sense of justice and self-respect could have conducted a correspondence on a matter of business in terms of such dignified propriety as Murray employed in addressing Benjamin Disraeli after the collapse of the Representative. It is indeed a proof of power to appreciate character, remarkable in so young a man, that Disraeli should, after all that had passed between them, have approached Murray in his capacity of publisher with complete confidence. He knew that he was dealing with a man at once shrewd and magnanimous, and he gave him credit for understanding how to estimate his professional interest apart from his sense of private injury.

Perhaps his most distinguishing characteristic as a publisher was his unfeigned love of literature for its own sake; a love which he owed in great part to the example and instruction of his half-brother Archibald. His almost romantic admiration for genius and its productions, raised him above the atmosphere of petty calculation. Not unfrequently it of course led him into commercial mistakes, and in his purchase of Crabbe’s ‘Tales,’ he found to his cost, that his enthusiastic appreciation of that author’s works and the magnificence of his dealings with him were not the measure of the public taste. Yet disappointments of this kind in no way embittered his temper, or affected the liberality with which he treated writers like Washington Irving, of whose powers he had himself once formed a high conception. The mere love of money indeed was never an absorbing motive in Murray’s commercial career, otherwise it is certain that his course in the suppression of Byron’s Memoirs would have been something very different to that which he actually pursued. On the perfect letter which he wrote to Scott, presenting him with his fourth share in ‘Marmion,’ the best comment is the equally admirable letter in which Scott returned his thanks. The grandeur—for that seems the appropriate word—of his dealings with men of high genius, is seen in his payments to Byron, while his confidence in the solid value of literary excellence appears from the fact that, when the Quarterly was not paying its expenses, he gave Southey for his ‘Life of Nelson’ double the usual rate of remuneration. No doubt his lavish generosity was politic as well as splendid. This, and the prestige which he obtained as Byron’s publisher, naturally drew to him all that was vigorous and original in the intellect of the day, so that there was a general desire among young authors to be introduced to the public under his auspices. The relations between author and publisher which had prevailed in the eighteenth century were, in his case, curiously inverted, and, in the place of a solitary scholar like Johnson, surrounded by an association of booksellers, the drawing-room of Murray now presented the remarkable spectacle of a single publisher acting as the centre of attraction to a host of distinguished writers.

In Murray the spirit of the eighteenth century seemed to meet and harmonise with the spirit of the nineteenth. Enthusiasm, daring, originality, and freedom from conventionality made him eminently a man of his time, and, in a certain sense, he did as much as any of his contemporaries to swell that movement in his profession towards complete individual liberty, which had been growing almost from the foundation of the Stationers’ Company. On the other hand, in his temper, taste, and general principles, he reflected the best and most ancient traditions of his craft. Had his life been prolonged, he would have witnessed the disappearance in the trade of many institutions which he reverenced and always sought to develop. Some of them, indeed, vanished in his own life-time. The old association of booksellers, with its accompaniment of trade-books, dwindled with the growth of the spirit of competition and the greater facility of communication, so that, long before his death, the cooperation between the booksellers of London and Edinburgh was no more than a memory. Another institution which had his warm support was the Sale dinner, but this too has all but succumbed during the past decade, to the existing tendency for new and more rapid methods of conducting business. The object of the Sale dinner was to induce the great distributing houses, and the retail booksellers to speculate, and buy an increased supply of books on special terms. Speculation has now almost ceased in consequence of the enormous number of books published, which makes it difficult for a bookseller to keep a large stock of any single work, and renders the life of a new book so precarious that the demand for it may at any moment come to a sudden stop.

The country booksellers—a class in which Murray was always deeply interested—are dying out. Profits on books being cut down to a minimum, these tradesmen find it almost impossible to live by the sale of books alone, and are forced to couple this with some other kind of business.

The apparent risk involved in Murray’s extraordinary spirit of adventure was in reality diminished by the many checks which in his day operated on competition, and by the high prices then paid for ordinary books. Men were at that time in the habit of forming large private libraries, and furnishing them with the sumptuous editions of travels and books of costly engraving issued from Murray’s press. The taste of the time has changed. Collections of books have been superseded, as a fashion, by collections of pictures, and the circulating library encourages the habit of reading books without buying them. Cheap bookselling, the characteristic of the age, has been promoted by the removal of the tax on paper, and by the refuse out of which paper can now be manufactured. This cheapness, the ideal condition for which Charles Knight sighed, has been accompanied by a distinct deterioration in the taste and industry of the general reader. The multiplication of Reviews, Magazines manuals, and abstracts, has impaired the love of, and perhaps the capacity for study, research, and scholarship on which the general quality of literature must depend. Books, and even knowledge, like other commodities, may, in proportion to the ease with which they are obtained, lose at once both their external value and their intrinsic merit.

Murray’s professional success is sufficient evidence of the extent of his intellectual powers. The foregoing Memoir has confined itself almost exclusively to an account of his life as a publisher, and it has been left to the reader’s imagination to divine from a few glimpses how much of this success was due to force of character and a rare combination of personal qualities. A few concluding words on this point may not be inappropriate.

Quick-tempered and impulsive, he was at the same time warm-hearted and generous to a fault, while a genuine sense of humour, which constantly shows itself in his letters, saved him many a time from those troubles into which the hasty often fall. “I wish,” wrote George Borrow, within a short time of the publisher’s death, “that all the world were as gay as he.”

He was in some respects indolent, and not infrequently caused serious misunderstandings by his neglect to answer letters; but when he did apply himself to work, he achieved results more solid than most of his compeers. He had, moreover, a wonderful power of attraction, and both in his conversation and correspondence possessed a gift of felicitous expression which rarely failed to arouse a sympathetic response in those whom he addressed. Throughout “the trade” he was beloved, and he rarely lost a friend among those who had come within his personal influence.

He was eager to look for, and quick to discern, any promise of talent in the young. “Every one,” he would say, “has a book in him, or her, if one only knew how to extract it,” and many was the time that he lent a helping hand to those who were first entering on a literary career.

To his remarkable powers as a host the many descriptions of his dinner parties which have been preserved, amply testify; he was more than a mere entertainer, and took the utmost pains so to combine and to place his guests as best to promote sympathetic conversation and the general harmony of the gathering. Among the noted wits and talkers, moreover, who assembled round his table he was fully able to hold his own in conversation and in repartee.

On one occasion Lady Bell was present at one of these parties, and wrote: “The talk was of wit, and Moore gave specimens. Charles thought that our host Murray said the best things that brilliant night.”

Many of the friends whose names are most conspicuous in these pages had passed away before him, but of those who remained there was scarcely one whose letters do not testify to the general affection with which he was regarded. We give here one or two extracts from letters received during his last illness. Thomas Mitchell wrote to the present Mr. Murray:—

“Give my most affectionate remembrances to your father. More than once I should have sunk under the ills of life but for his kind support and countenance, and so I believe would many others say besides myself. Be his maladies small or great, assure him that he has the earnest sympathies of one who well knows and appreciates his sterling merits.”

Sir Francis Palgrave, who had known Mr. Murray during the whole course of his career, wrote to him affectionately of “the friendship and goodwill which,” said he, “you have borne towards me during a period of more than half my life. I am sure,” he added, “as we grow older we find day by day the impossibility of finding any equivalent for old friends.” Sharon Turner also, the historian, was most cordial in his letters.

“Our old friends,” he said, “are dropping off so often that it becomes more and more pleasing to know that some still survive whom we esteem and by whom we are not forgotten . . . Certainly we can look back on each other new for forty years, and I can do so as to you with great pleasure and satisfaction, when, besides the grounds of private satisfaction and esteem, I think of the many works of great benefit to society which you have been instrumental in publishing, and in some instances of suggesting and causing. You have thus made your life serviceable to the world as well as honourable to yourself . . . You are frequently in my recollections, and always with those feelings which accompanied our intercourse in our days of health and activity. May every blessing accompany you and yours, both here and hereafter.”

It was not only in England that his loss was felt, for the news of his death called forth many tokens of respect and regard from beyond the seas, and we will close these remarks with two typical extracts from the letters of American correspondents.

Dr. Robinson, of New York, summed up his qualities in these words written to the present Mr. Murray:—

“I have deeply sympathised with the bereaved family at the tidings of the decease of one of whom I have heard and read from childhood, and to whose kindness and friendship I had recently been myself so much indebted. He has indeed left you a rich inheritance, not only by his successful example in business and a wide circle of friends, but also in that good name which is better than all riches. He lived in a fortunate period—his own name is inseparably connected with one of the brightest eras of English literature—one, too, which, if not created, was yet developed and fostered by his unparalleled enterprise and princely liberality. I counted it a high privilege to be connected with him as a publisher, and shall rejoice in continuing the connection with his son and successor.”

Mrs. L. H. Sigourney wrote from Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.:—

“Your father’s death is a loss which is mourned on this side of the Atlantic. His powerful agency on the patronage of a correct literature, which he was so well qualified to appreciate, has rendered him a benefactor in that realm of intellect which binds men together in all ages, however dissevered by political creed or local prejudice. His urbanity to strangers is treasured with gratitude in many hearts. To me his personal kindness was so great that I deeply regretted not having formed his acquaintance until just on the eve of my leaving London. But his parting gifts are among the chief ornaments of my library, and his last letter, preserved as a sacred autograph, expresses the kindness of a friend of long standing, and promises another ‘more at length,’ which, unfortunately, I had never the happiness of receiving.”

THE END.

INDEX.

ABERCORN. Abercorn, Marq. and Marchioness of, ii. 63. Advance Sheets System, ii. 27. Afghanistan, books on, ii. 506. Airican Association, i. 239, 240; i. 278. Aglietri, Dr., i. 393; i. 398. Alison’s “Essays on Taste,” i. 324. Allegra, death of, ii. 430; buried at Harrow, ii. 432. Allen, John, i. 324. Appleton, the American bookseller, ii. 426. Ashley, Lord (afterwards Lord Shaftesbury), article in Q. R. on Factory System, ii. 450. Aspinwall, Col., ii. 256; ii. 258. Athenaeum Club, i. 264. Aucher, Padre Pasquale, ii. 464. Austen, Miss Jane, “Northanger Abbey,” i. z8l, 283; Novels published by Murray, i. 282, 283. Austin, Mrs. Sarah, ii. 375. Austria, Empress of, i. 280. Baillie, Mrs. Joanna, i.i 17; i. 324; her opinion of Fanny Kemble’s “Francis the First,” ii. 399. Baldwin & Cradock, i. 318. Ballantyne & Co. (John & James), bill transactions with Murray, i. 84; i. 185; i. 195; partnership with Scott, i. 85; proposed edition of “British Novelists,” i. 86-89; Works of De Foe, i. 89; Edinburgh Annual Register, ibid.; 1.94,i. 119; James B. meets Murray at Boroughbridge, i. 141; appointed Edinburgh agents for Q. R., i. 142; views on Q. R., i. 145; i. 159; close alliance with Murray, i. 170; financial difficulties, i. 170- 172; i. 241; breach with Murray, i. BARROW. 175; failure of Edinburgh Ann. Reg., i. 191; “Waverley,” i. 244; “Tales of a Grandfather,” i. 245; “Lord of the Isles,” ibid.; i. 258; “Don Roderick,” i. 258; Scott’s proposed letters from the Continent, i. 273; “Paul’s Letters,” i. 277; i. 286; propesal to Murray and Blackwood about Scott’s works, i. 457 et seq.; in debt to Scott, i. 463; “Tales of my Landlord,” “The Black Dwarf,” i. 466; unauthorised edition of the “Heart of Midlothian,” ii. I; bankruptcy, ii. 212; death of John Ballantyne, ii. 251. Banks, Sir Joseph, i. 277. Barker, Miss, i. 259; i. 272. Barnes, J., Editor of the “Times,” ii. 369; ii. 384. Barrow, Sir John, induced by Canning to write for Q. R., i. 166; opinion of Byron, i. 405; on Byron’s Memoirs, i. 442; letter to Murray on Tuckey’s “journal,” ii. 31; connection with the Q. R., ii. 44; visit to Gifford, ii. 58; advice as to Parry’s “Journal,” ii. loo; consulted by Murray about voyages or travels, ii. 151; nicknamed “Chronometer” by B. Disraeli, ii. 189; “Mutiny of the Bounty,” ii. 302; “Life of Admiral Howe”—protests against Murray’s generosity, ii. 428; “Lord Anson’s Memoir,” ii. 429; articles in lhe Q. R.:—“Java,” i. 199; “Timber and Shipbuilding,” “Naval Dry Rot,” i. 284; “Polar Explorations,” ii. 45; “Birkbeck’s Notes on America,” ii. 51; “Navy of England and France,” ii. 54; “Wm. Faux in America,” ii. 157; “Australian Colonies,” ii. 455. BARRY. Barry, Mr. (of Genoa) Byron’s friend, ii. 465. Bartholdy, Baron, ii. 114. Barton, Bernard, i. 473. Basevi, George, i. 273. Basevi, junr., George, ii. 200. Bastard, Capt., ii. 78. Beattie, Dr., i. 334. Beddowes, J., “Scheele’s Essays,” i. 26. Bedford, Grosvenor, i. 108; i. 259. Bell, Sir Charles, i. 324; “Anatomy of Expression,” ii. 118. Bell, Lady, ii. 519. Bell & Bradfute, i. 253. Bellenden, Mary, ii. 93. Belzoni, Giovanni, ii. 95-99. Berry, Miss, edits “Horace Walpole’s Reminiscences,” ii. 95. Bessborough, Countess of, i. 410. Bidlake, Mr., i. 35. Birkbeck’s “Notes on America,” ii. 51. Black’s “Life of Tasso,” i. 196. Blackwood, William, appointed Murray’s Agent for Scotland, i. 175; visits Murray, i. 247; intimacy with Murray, i. 255; early career, ibid.; opinion of John Wilson, i. 343; threatens Constable with proceedings for printing Byron’s “Poems,” i. 363, 364; refuses to sell “Don Juan,” i. 404; alliance and correspondence with Murray, i. 452-474; Office in Edinburgh, a literary lounge, i. 453; suspects William Erskine to be author of “Guy Mannering,” i. 454; dinner at which “Siege of Corinth “and “Parisina” were read, i. 455; Ballantyne’s proposals about Scott’s works, i. 457; Blackwood’s Magazine started, i. 476; Murray’s remonstrance about the personality of articles, i. 482-486; Hazlitt’s libel action, i. 486; i. 491-493; interested with Murray in various works, ii. 1, 2. Blackwood’s Magazine, started (first called Edinburgh Magazine), i. 476; article attacking Byron, i, 405; “Ancient Chaldee MS.,” i. 478: “The Cockney School of Poetry,” i. 479-481; i. 494; personality of articles, i. 482 et seq.; “Hypocrisy Unveiled,” etc., i. 487; Murray retires from—Cadell and Davies appointed London Agents for, i. 494; BUCKE. article on Shelley’s “Revolt of Islam,” i. 495. Blessington, Countess of, “Conversations with Lord Byron,” ii. 76. Blewitt, Octavian, ii. 483. Blomfield, Rev. C. J. (Bishop of Chester), ii. 238. Blunt, Rev. J. J., ii. 300. Bohn, Mr., issues pirated edition of Washington lrving’s works; lawsuit with Murray, ii. 262. Borrow, George, his youth; capacity for learning languages; appointed Agent to the Bible Society—Russia, Norway, Turkey and Spain, ii. 484; his translation of the Bible: called Lavengro; his splendid physique, ii. 485; “Gypsies of Spain,” ibid.; “The Bible in Spain,” ii. 485-493; as a horse-breaker, ii. 486; remarks on Allan Cunningham’s death, ii. 488; asked to become a member of the Royal Institution, ii. 492. Boswell, Sir Alexander, ii. 47. “Boswell’s Johnson,” Croker’s edition of, ii. 289. Brandt, Professor W. T., ii. 207. Bray, Mrs., ii. 83. Brewster, Dr., “Mechanical Philosophy,” i. 250. Brockedon, William, his portrait of the Countess Guiccioli, ii. 423; Murray’s companion during travels abroad, ii. 464; his help in Murray’s Handbooks, ii. 482. Broderip, W. J., ii. 441. Brougham, Lord, his article in Ed. Rev. on Dr. Young’s theory of light, i. 92; Chairman of the Society for the diffusion of Useful Knowledge, ii. 295; interest in Mrs. Somerville, ii. 406; at Rokeby, ii. 453. Broughton, Lord, see Hobhouse. Brown, Dr. Thomas, “Philosophy of the Human Mind,” and “Paradise of Coquettes,” i. 278. Browne, Col. H., ii. 32. Brunton, Miss, i. 137. Brunton, Mrs., “Emmeline,” “Self-Control,” and “Discipline,” ii. 73. Brunton, Rev. Dr., ii. 73. Buccleuch, Duke of, his present of a farm to James Hogg, i. 347. Bucke, Charles, “Beauties, Harmonies, and Sublimities of Nature,” ii. 29. BUCKLAND. Buckland, Mrs., ii. 363. Buckland, Professor, ii. 59; ii. 363. Barges, Miss, ii. 359. Burges, Sir James Bland, i. 372. Burgoyne, R.E., Col., ii. 370. Burnes, Sir Alexander, on the new Overland Route, ii. 392; at Cabool, ii. 444; his “Residence in Cabool,” ii. 506. Butler, Charles, “Historical Memoirs,” ii. 29; “Books on the R. Cath. Church,” ii. 237. Butler, Pierce (Fanny Kemble’s husband), ii. 399; correspondence with Murray, ii. 401. Burney, Dr., i. 22. Buxton, Thos. Fowell, “Slave Trade and its Remedy,” ii. 438. Bynner, H., ii. 203. Byron, Lord, first association and meeting with Murray, i. 205, 207; “Childe Harold,” i. 207-212; presented to Prince Regent, i. 212; breach with Scott healed, i. 213, 215; “The Waltz,” i. 217; member of Drury Lane Committee, ibid.; “Giaour,” “Bride of Abydos,” i. 219-222; “Corsair,” i. 223; “Ode to Napoleon,” i. 228; “Lara,” i. 229-231; marriage, i. 251; i. 350; meets Scott at Murray’s house, i. 267; remarks on Battle of Waterloo, i. 270; portrait by Phillips, i. 272; kindness to Maturin, i. 293, 295; remarks on Mme, de Stael, i. 314; dealings with Murray, i. 350 et seq.; residence in Piccadilly, i. 352; pecuniary embarrassments, ibid.; Murray’s generous offer, i. 353; Murray’s remonstrance, i. 355; “Siege of Corinth” and “Parisina,” i. 353 et seq.; separation from wife, i. 360; sale of effects: “Sketch from Private Life,” i. 361, 362; leaves England, i. 364; “Childe Harold” and “Prisoner of Chillon,” i. 365, 369; “Armenian Grammar,” i. 370; remarks on Scott’s Review of “Childe Harold,” Canto III., i. 376; “Swiss Journal,” i. 381; “Manfred,” i. 382; attack of fever at Venice, i. 384; “Lament of Tasso,” ibid.; “Childe Harold,” Canto IV., i. 385; irritated at Gifford’s correction of “Manfred,” i. 387; visit from Hobhouse, i. 388; his bust by Thorwaldsen, i. 391; corre- BYRON spondence with Murray in 1817 to 1822, i. 392-432; “Beppo,” i. 392; Frere’s “Whistlecraft,” i. 394; “Miscellaneous Poems,” ibid.; at Venice and Ravenna, i. 396 et seq.; account of Monk Lewis in “Detached Thoughts,” i. 396; opinion of Southey, i. 399; “Don Juan,” Cantos I. & II.; Murray’s suggestions as to, i. 401; hatred of Romilly, ibid.; “Letter of Julia,” i. 402; “Mazeppa,” “Ode to Venice,” i. 403; “Prophecy of Dante,” i. 408, 412, 420; Copyright of “Don Juan,” i. 405-408; Countess Guiccioli; proposal to visit S. America, i. 409; “Don Juan,” Cantos III. & IV.; translation of Pulci’s “Morgante Maggiore,” i. 411; “Marino Faliero,” produced at Drury Lane; “Don Juan,” Canto V., i. 412; Murray’s refusal to publish further Cantos of “Don Juan,” i. 413; “My boy Hobby O! “Hobhouse’s anger, i. 417; Whig Club at Cambridge, i. 418; pamphlet on “Bowles’ strictures,” i. 420; “Sardanapalus,” 421; i. 425; “The Two Foscari,” “Cain: a Mystery,” i. 422; i. 425; injunction in case of “Cain,” i. 426-428; indignation at Oxoniensis’ attack on Murray, i. 427; at Pisa, i. 428; death and burial of Allegra, i. 432; illness, and last letter to Murray, i. 434; adopts Hato or Hatagee, i. 435; the Suliotes incident, i. 436; death: Murray’s application for his burial in Westminster Abbey refused, i. 436; buried at Hucknall Torkard Church, i. 437; Memoirs and Moore, i. 438; destruction of Memoirs, i. 442, 443; agreement between Moore and Murray, i. 445-448; “Medwin’s Conversations,” 4.450; Moore undertakes to write “Life,” i. 451; Murray’s negotiations with Moore as to “Life,” ii. 307; old servant, Fletcher, ii. 311; agreement as to “Life,” ii. 312; Vol. I. of “Life,” published, ii. 318; Vol. II., ii. 320; Murray’s proposed edition of his works, ii. 327; Thorwaldsen’s statue refused by Dean of Westminster, ii. 330; attempt to alter Dean’s decision; the statue placed in library of Trinity College, Cambridge, ii. 331. BYRON. Byron, Lady, Murray’s opinion of, i. 347; i. 368; her offer to Murray for redemption of Byron’s Memoirs, i. 441. Cadell & Davies, appointed London Agents for “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 494. Callcott, Lady, see Graham, Mrs. Callcott, Sir Augustus, i. 321. Campbell, Thomas, “Pleasures of Hope,” “Hohenlinden,” “The Exile of Erin,” “Ye Mariners of England,” “Battle of the Baltic,” “Locheil’s Warning,” i. 322; at Sydenham, i. 323; correspondence with Scott, i. 326; intimacy with Murray, i. 327 et seq.; proposed “Selection from British Poets,” i. 328 et seq.; “Gertrude of Wyoming,” i. 330; Lectures on Poetry, i. 331; “Now Barabbas was a Publisher,” i. 336; his opinion of Mrs. Hemans’ “Records of Woman,” i. 342. Canning, George, starts “Anti-Jacobin,” i. 91; i. 138; assists in starting “Quarterly Review,” i. 93; i. 115, 116; contributes to Q. R., i. 126; writes George Ellis’s epitaph, i. 127; article in Q. R. on “Austrian State Papers,” i. 158; on Spain, i. 160, 161; opinion of Rogers’ “Jacqueline,” i. 230; views on the Royal Society of Literature, i. 237; opinion of “Waverley,” i. 243; connection with the article “Mr. Brougham’s Education Committee” in Q. R., ii. 49; letters from Gifford, ii. 162, 173; assistance to Gifford, ii. 171; called “X.” by Benjamin Disraeli, ii. 187. Canning, Stratford, “The Miniature,” i. 67, 68; connection with Q. R.,i. 93; introduces Gifford to Murray, i. 94; his mission to Constantinople, i. 152. Canada, rebellion in, ii. 368; discussion in Parliament, ii. 370. Carlile, Mr. Gifford’s guardian, i. 128. Carlyle, Thomas, recommended to Murray by Lord Jeffrey, ii. 349; correspondence with Murray about “Sartor Resartus,” ii. 350 et seq.; “Sartor Resartus” declined by other publishers; returns to Craigenputtock; “Sartor Resartus” published in “Fraser’s Magazine,” and, through Emerson’s influence, in United States, ii. 355; opinion of Lockhart, ii. Colquhoun. 452; pamphlet on “Chartism,” ii. 453; opinion of John Sterling’s poem, “The Election,” ii. 498. Cartwright, Rev. Dr. Edmund, “Armine and Elvira,” i. 7; i. 33. Cartwright, Major John, i. 7. Catlin’s “Red Man in Canada, &c.,” ii. 372. Cavour, Count, introduced to Murray, ii. 423. Cawthorn, publisher of “English Bards and Scotch Reviewers,” i. 205. Cervetto, i. 247. Chalmers, George, “Private Life of Queen Mary,” ii. 13. Chantrey, Sir F., calls Murray “a brother Cyclops,” i. 32; his bust of Scott, i. 424; his connection with Allan Cunningham, ii. 152. Charlotte, Princess, ii. 162. Chartist Riots, ii. 452. Chesterfield, Lord, ii. 85. Cholera scare in Germany, ii. 466, 467. Clapperton, Capt. Hugh, ii. 240. Clarence, Duke of, i. 249. Cleghorn, James, editor of “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 477. Clowes, Mr., Sir F. Head at his office, ii. 356. Cobbett, William, i. 136-138. Cohen, Francis, see Palgrave, Sir Francis. Colborne, Sir John, ii. 368. Colburn, the publisher, “Medwin’s Conversations,” i. 449; “Vivian Grey,” ii. 218; declines “Sartor Resartus,” ii. 352. Coleridge, H. Nelson, ii. 416. Coleridge, John Taylor, ii. 60; ii. 155; appointed Editor to “Quarterly Review,” ii. 164; wishes to resign editorship, ii. 198; resigns, and appointed a Judge, ii. 219; ii. 231. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, “Biographia Litteraria,” i. 296; correspondence with Murray, i. 297-307; “Goethe’s Faust,” i. 297; “Wallenstein,” i. 300; “The Friend,”i. 301; “Remorse,” “Glycine,” “Christabel,” “Christmas Tale,” “Zapolya,” i. 303, 304; opinion of Frere, i. 305. Coles, Benjamin W., ii. 134. Colman’s Comedy, “John Bull,” i. 32. Colquhoun, Rt. Hon. J. C. (Lord Advocate), i. 100; i. 103. Colquhoun, Sir James, ii. 38. COLQUHOUN. Colquhoun, John, “The Moor and the Loch,” ii. 494; correspondence with Murray, ii. 495; dissatisfaction with Blackwood, ibid.; visit to London and interview with Murray, ii. 496. Conolly, Lieut. A., ii. 444. Constable, Archibald (Constable & Co.), i. 35; early years, i. 56; “Farmer’s Magazine,” “Scots Magazine,” “Edinburgh Review,” i. 57; his partner, A. G. Hunter, ibid.; appointed Murray’s agent, i. 59; “Sir Tristram” and “Lay of the Last Minstrel,” ibid.; breach with Longman, i. 60; £1000 for “Marmion,” i. 76; injunction as to Edin. Rev. obtained by Longman, i. 78; letter to Jeffrey, i. 79; “Mountain Bard,” and “Shepherd’s Guide” (Hogg), i. 80; Murray’s remonstrances as to drawing Bills, i. 81-83; i. 186; i. 196; establishes London House; breach with Murray, i. 83; proposals from Murray, i. 174; “Douglas’s Peerage,” i. 197; final breach with Murray, ibid.; fresh alliance with Scott, i. 241; “Antiquary,” i. 285; Campbell’s “Selections from the British Poets,” i. 327; Poems by Byron on his Domestic Circumstances, i. 363; Mrs. Markham’s “History of England,” ii. 152; bankruptcy, ii. 212; ii. 248; “Constable’s Miscellany,” ii. 246-250; renews friendship with Murray, ii. 247; death, ii. 251. Constant, Benjamin, i. 276; i. 281. Cook, John Douglas, Editor of “Saturday Review,” ii. 384. Cooke, Robert, i. 32. Cooke, W. B. (the engraver), ii. 50. Cookesley, William, Gifford’s benefactor, i. 130; correspondence with Gifford, i. 131-134; death, i. 134. Cooper, James Fenimore, ii. 134. Cooper, Samuel, “Dictionary of Practical Surgery,” i. 67. Coplestone, i. 181. Copyright Bill, the, Lockhart’s article on, ii. 499; Mitchell’s opinion of, ii. 500; Mr. Gladstone’s remarks on, ii. 501. Cornaro Palace at Venice, burnt, i. 389. Cornwall, Barry (B. W. Procter), ii. 101. CROKER. Cotton, Sir W. T., ii. 444. Coxe, Archdeacon, ii. 85. Crabbe, “Tales of the Hall,” and other poems, ii. 71, 72; his death, ii. 385. Creech and Elliot, i. 18. Croker, Crofton, ii. 97; “Fairy Legends,” ii. 152; Scott’s description of, ii. 291. Croker, John Wilson, i. 162; constant contributor to “Quarterly,” i. 201; visit to Prince Rrgent, i. 249: “Talavera,” i. 265; portrait by Eddis, i. 271; “Stories for Children on Hist. of England,” i. 339; on “Don Juan” and Byron, i. 413-416; visit to Edinburgh, i. 465; takes charge of Q. R. during Gifford’s illness, ii. 57; views on the “Monthly Register,” ii. 66-68; edits Lady Hervey’s “Letters,” ii. 86; opinion of the Waldegrave and Walpole Memoirs, ii. 89; edits the “Suffolk Papers,” 91; edits Mrs. Delany’s Letters, ii. 94; part proprietor with Murray of the “Guardian” ii. 113; death of his only son, ii. 117; proposes to start a weekly newspaper, “The Constitution,” ii. 181; Lockhart’s opinion of him, ii. 225; “Boswell’s Johnson,” ii. 287; ii. 289; on “Horace Walpole’s Letters to Mr. Mason,” ii. 294; opinion of “Moore’s Life of Byron,” ii. 321; opinion of Leigh Hunt’s “Tatler,” ii. 322; final retirement from official life; turns to literary work, ii. 379; resolve not to write political articles, ii. 381; remarks on Q. R., ii. 382; on Mrs. Lockhart’s death, ii. 383; refuses Murray’s “excessive payments,” ii. 429, 430; takes charge of Q. R. during Lockhart’s illness, ii. 505; number of his articles in Q. R., ii. 379; some of which are: “Miss Edgeworth,” i. 202; “Sketch of Brougham,” i. 260; “Coleman’s Vagaries,” i. 262; Miss Plumptre’s “Residence in Ireland,” ii. 44; “Moore’s Life of Lord Fitzgerald,” “Colonial Government, Head’s Narrative. Durham’s Report,” ii. 373; “Wellington Despatches,” ii. 379; “Dr. Keith on the Prophecies,” ii. 380; “Fanny Kemble’s Journal,” ii. 402. CULLEN. Cullen, Dr. W., “Practice of Physic,” i. 20. Cumberland, Richard, “New Review,” and “John de Lancaster,” i. 98. Cumming, Thomas, i. 9. Cunningham, Allan, Chantrey’s Secretary, ii. 152; “Paul Jones: a Romance,” ii. 194; “Lives of the Artists,” ii. 296; constant correspondent of Murray’s, ii. 433; his death, ii. 434; “Memoirs of Sir D. Wilkie,” ii. 496; Lockhart’s article in Q. R. on the “Memoirs,” ii. 497. Cunningham, Rev. J. W., and the burial of Allegra at Harrow, i. 430. Cunningham, Mounsey, i. 190. Cunningham, Peter, ii. 447. Cuthill, i. 255. Dacre, Lady (Mrs. Wilmot), i. 379; ii. 118; ii. 137; opinion of Fanny Kemble’s “Journal,” ii. 402. Dagley (the Engraver), i. 45; i. 48; book on Gems, i. 58. D’Aguilar, Col., ii. 321. Dallas, Mr., i. 205 et seq. Dallas, Sir George, ii. III. Dartmouth, Earl of, ii. 449. Davidson, Rev. J., “Oxford and Mr. Coplestone,” i. 181. Davies, Annie, Gifford’s housekeeper, i. 248; i. 261, 262, 263. Davies, Scrope, i. 386; ii. 420. Davy, Sir Humphry, i. 286; ii. 208; “Salmonia, or Days of Fly-Fishing,” ii. 266. De Beaumont, ii. 423. De Guignes, “History of Dutch Embassy to China,” i. 167. D’Haussez, Baron, ii. 343. Delany, Mrs., ii. 94. Denham, Major, ii. 240. Delia Cruscan School of Poetry, i. 136. De Quincy, i. 477. Deshayes, ii. 391. De Sismondi, J. C. L., “History of the Italian Republics,” ii. 36. De Stael, Madame, i. 220; ordered to quit Paris, i. 247; driven from Switzerland, i. 266; a frequenter of Murray’s drawing-room, ibid.; correspondence with Murray; “L’Allemagne,” i. 313-316; Byron’s and Gifford’s opinion of, i. 313; essay D’ISRAELI. against Suicide, i. 314; “La Revolution Francaise,” i. 316; death, i. 318. De Stael, Baron, i. 316-318. De Tocqueville, ii. 423. Diedrich Knickerbocker (Washington Irving’s pseudonym), ii. 126. Dillon, Sir John, “The Chieftain’s Daughter,” ii. 35. Disraeli, Benjamin, ii. 107, 108; “Aylmer Papillon,” “History of Paul Jones,” ii. 182; ii. 194; correspondence with Murray, ii. 182; pamphlets on Mining Speculations; ii. 185; connection with Messrs. Powles, ibid.; ii. 254; partner with Murray and Powles in “Representative,” ii. 186; letters to Murray on the “Representative” negotiations, ii. 187 et seq.; description of York Cathedral, ii. 188; visits Lockhart, ii. 190; interview with Scott at Chiefswood, ii. 191; second visit to Scotland, and exertions on behalf of “Representative,” ii. 200 et seq.; drops his connection with “Representative,” ii. 206; “Vivian Grey” and “Contarini Fleming,” ii. 218, 332-340; renewal of correspondence with Murray, ii. 332 et seq.; travels in Spain, etc., ii. 334; Radical candidate for Wycombe, ii. 337; attended by Tita (Byron’s Gondolier), ii. 340; “Gallomania,” ii. 341 et seq.; declines being returned for a Tory borough, refuses to join Conservative Club, ii. 345; publishes reply to criticisms on “Gallomania,” ii. 348. D’Israeli, Isaac, “Curiosities of Literature,” i. 41; friendship with Murray, i. 42-55; “Flim-Flams,” i. 43; birth of his son, Benjamin, i. 47; Murray’s marriage-settlement Trustee, i. 73; advice about Q. R., i. 163-165; anxiety about Murray’s health, i. 179; “Calamities of Authors,” i. 214; i. 236, 237; his illness, i. 277; opinion of Miss Williams’ “Narrative of Events in France,” i. 280; “Character of James L,” i. 339; remarks on “Siege of Corinth,” i. 358; article in Q. R. on Spence’s “Anecdotes,” ii. 53; “Literary Character,” ii. 68; impromptu on Belzoni, ii. 97; meets Washington Irving at Murray’s ii. 127; advice to Murray on choice of Gifford’s successor, ii. 156; views on DODD. J. T. Coleridge’s appointment, ii. 168; consulted by Murray as to “Representative,” ii. 193; proposed pamphlet on his misunderstanding with Murray, ii. 215-217. Dodd, “Our Autumn on the Rhine,” ii. 265. Douglas, Sir Howard, “Military Bridges,” ii. 9. D’Oyley, Rev. Dr., i. 157; i. 161; ii. 15. Drummond (Under Sec. for Ireland), ii. 370. Dudley, Lord, on Reform, i. 202; on Mdme.de Stael’s death, i. 318; his “Letters,” ii. 443. Dundas, Robert, i. 102. Dundonald, Earl of (Lord Cochrane), ii. 150. Duppa, Richard, “Life of Michael Angelo,” i. 69. Durham, Earl of, ii. 369. Eastlake, Lady, “Letters from the Baltic,” ii. 441, 442. Eastlake, Sir Charles L., “Translation of Memoirs of the Carbonari,” ii. 114; Mrs. Graham’s interest in, ii. 115. Eaton, Mrs., i. 279; i. 405. Ebrington, Lord, i. 351. Edinburgh Annual Register, i. 191; i. 196. Edinburgh Magazine and Review, i. 12. Edinburgh Review started, i. 91; published by Murray, i. 76, 77; its great success, i. 80; injunction obtained by Longman, i. 78; Jeffrey, editor of, ibid.; denounces Government, i. 92; articles on “Marmion,” i. 95, 96; on “Don Cevallos on the Occupation of Spain,” i. 97. Edwards, Rev. E., ii. 211; ii. 251. Eldon, Lord, on copyright of “Cain,” i. 428. Elliot, Miss, i. 67; marries John Murray II., i. 73. Elliot, Charles, i. 18; i. 67. Ellis, George, i. 100; birth and parentage, i. 125; “Poetical Tales of Sir Gregory Gander,” ibid.; mission to the Hague: elected M. P. for Seaford, i. 125; intimacy with George Canning; friendship with Scott, i 126; “Specimens of Early English Poetry”; “Specimens of Early English FRANKLAND. Romances”; his reviews of Scott’s and Byron’s poems; contributes to Q. R., i. 126; constant critic of the Q. R. i. 151; i. 159; articles on Spain and W. India, i. 160-161; on ponderous articles in Q. R., i. 163; “Clarke’s Travels,” i. 184; advice as to punctuality in issuing Q. R., i. 188; his death—epitaph written by George Canning, i. 127. Ellis, Sir Henry, “Embassy to China,” ii. 63. Elliston, the actor, i. 217. Elmsley, Rev. P., i. 284. Elphinstone, Hon. Mount-Stuart, “Kingdom of Cabul,” i. 285. Emerson, friendship with Carlyle, ii. 355. English Review, i. 12; i. 21; i. 23. Erskine, Lord, “Armata,” i. 370. Erskine, William, i. 148, 150; i. 156, 158; i. 454. Everett, A. H., ii. 83; ii. 402. Eyre, Lieutenant, “Military Operations in Cabool,” ii. 506. Faber, Rev. G. S., ii. 237. Factory districts in 1839, the state of, ii. 450; ii. 452. Falconer, William, “The Shipwreck”; and “Universal Marine Dictionary,” i. 3; i. 6; lost at sea, i. 5. Family Library, works comprising, ii. 296 et seq.; the whole series (47 vols.) handed over by Murray to Tegg & Co., ii. 302. Faussett, Dr. Godfrey, ii. 300. Fazakerly’s interview with Napoleon, i.350. Fellows, Sir Charles, “Excavations in Lycia,” ii. 441; ii. 494. Ferriar, Dr., on “Apparitions,” L 243. Field, Barron, ii. 244. Fielding’s Novels, i. 69. Fisher, Alexander, ii. 100. Fletcher (Byron’s servant), ii. 311; ii. 465. Fletcher, Mrs., i. 33. Ford’s Dramatic Works, ii. 173. Ford, Richard, ii. 449; “Handbook, to Spain,” ii. 490; opinion of Borrow, ii. 491. Foscolo, Ugo, i. 410; ii. 52; ii. 135-142. Foy, General, ii. 282. Frankland, Sir Robert, ii. 432. FRANKLIN. Franklin, Sir John, ii. 120; Governor of Van Diemen’s land, ii. 419. Franklin, Lady (Miss E. A. Porden), ii. 120. Fraser, Rev. Alexander, i. 24. Fraser, Mr., offers £150 for “Sartor Resartus,” ii. 352. Freeling, Sir Francis, ii. 384, 385. Frere, John Hookham, i. 107; i. 116; opinion of “The Giaour,” and “Bride of Abydos,” i. 221; of “Lara,” i. 230; Coleridge’s opinion of, i. 305; his marriage, i. 366; on Lord Erskine’s “Armata,” i. 370; “Whistlecraft,” i. 392; i. 394; ii. 21; opinion of “Beppo,” i. 393; on advertising, ii. 22; translation of Aristophanes, ii. 18; ii. 24. Froissart, i. 145. Galignani, ii. 116. Garden, Mrs., “Memorials of James Hogg,” i. 479. “Gazetteer of Scotland,” i. 66. Gerard, the French painter, i. 276. Gifford, William, birth and parentage, i. 127; hardships and sufferings, i. 128; removed from school and bound apprentice to shoemaker: study of algebra; adopted by Cookesley, i. 129; at Oxford: correspondence with Cookesley, i. 131; the “Pastorals”; money troubles, i. 132; Cookesley’s help and advice, i. 133; elegy on death of Cookesley’s child; translation of 10th Satire of Juvenal, ibid.; Governor Palk’s generosity, i. 134; grief at Cookesley’s death: completes translation of loth Satire of Juvenal; “Baviad” and “Maeviad,” the Delia Cruscan School of Poetry; correspondence with William Cobbett, i. 136; editor of Anti-Jacobin: edits Massinger’s plays, i. 138; introduced to Murray, i. 94; accepts editorship of Q. R., i. 99; advice from Scott on Q. R., i. 104-107; Southey and the Q. R., i. 108; intimacy with George Canning, i. 116; unpunctuality as editor, i. 156; at Ryde, i. 158; i. 194; i. 203; i. 248; i. 261; i. 403; George Canning and the Q. R., i. 161; i. 166; Southey’s “Life of Nelson,” i. 177; Miss A. T. Palmer’s bribe, i. 180; disagreement with Murray, i. 181; harmony GILBERT. restored, i. 184; wages war with Edin. Rev., i. 183; proposes to resign Q. R. editorship, i. 188; intimacy with Murray, i. 192; opinion of Pillans, i. 193; bad health, i. 195; i.26l; Murray’s present, i. 195; opinion of W. S. Landor, i. 199; review of Ford’s Dramatic Works, i. 200; ii. 273; on Charles Lamb—his deep grief, i. 200; opinion of “Childe Harold,” i. 209; i. 365; of “The Giaour,” and Byron, i. 219; i. 366; illness of his housekeeper at Ryde, i. 248; i. 261, 262; opinion of Southey, i. 260; death of his house-keeper—memorial to her; libellous attack on him, i. 263; opinion of Miss Austen’s novels, i. 282; of Maturin, i. 293; of Mdme. de Stael, i. 314; illness at Dover, i. 337; Murray gives him a carriage, i. 338; edition of “Ben Jonson,” i. 338; i. 366; i. 369; opinion of Mrs. Hemans, i. 342; Byron’s “unlordly scrape,” i. 356; note on the “Siege of Corinth,” i. 357; on “Parisina,” 1. 359; corrections in proofs of “Manfred,” Byron’s irritation thereat, i. 387; opinion of “Mazeppa,” i. 403; of “Don Juan,” i. 405; i. 422; of “The Two Foscari,” i. 422; instructs Dr. Ireland (his executor) to destroy all confidential letters, etc., ii. 44; complains that Government does not support Q. R., ii. 52; the difficulties of editors, ii. 53; illness, ii. 54; ii. 56; ii. 59; at Ramsgate, ii. 55; ii. 59; drawn for Militia, ii. 56; Croker takes charge of Q. R., ii. 57; opinion of Milman’s “Fall of Jerusalem,” ii. 102; condoles with Murray on death of his son, ii. 117; Washington Irving’s description of, ii. 130; serious illness, ii. 155-162; letter to George Canning, ii. 157; resigns editorship, ii. 162; declines Oxford degree, ii. 163; Murray’s liberality to him, ii. 169, 170; helped by Canning and Lord Liverpool, ii. 171; last Tetter to Canning, ii. 173 i his death and burial in Westminster Abbey, ii. 174; will, ii. 175; character, ibid.; love for children, ii. 177; venomous attack upon him, ibid. Gilbert and Hodges, i. 38. GILLIES. Giillies, Dr. John, “Lysias and Isocrates,” History of Greece, i. 13, 14. Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E., Tory member for Newark, ii. 436; proposal to Murray about “Church and State,” ibid.; visit to Holland, ii.437; “Church and State” published, and “Church Principles,” ibid.; letter to Murray on Copyright Bill, ii. 501; opinion of Lieut. Eyre’s “Military Operations in Cabool,” ii. 506. Gleig, Rev. George, ii. 57. Glenbervie, Lord, i. 470. Glenelg, Lord, ii. 365. Godwin, William, “Lives of the Necromancers,” ii. 329. Gooch, Dr., ii. 231; anecdote of Lord Nelson, ii. 266. Gordon, Duke of, ii. 384. Gordon, General Sir Robert, i. 6; i. 13. Gosford, Earl of, ii. 368. Graham, Mrs. (Lady Callcott), i. 319; “Little Arthur’s History of England,” i. 321; opinion of Byron, i. 381; present to Murray, ii. 37; intimacy with Murray, ii. 116; at Court of Brazil, ii. 150; edition of Byron’s “Voyage of the Blonde,” ii. 293; frequently consulted by Murray, ii. 405; opinion of Fanny Kemble’s “Journal,” ii. 406. Graham, Captain, i. 321. Grahame’s “British Georgics,” i. 170. Grant, Sir Robert, his articles in Q. R. on “Character of the late C. J. Fox,” i. 169; “A Letter to the Prince Regent,” and “The State of Public Affairs,” ii. 52. Graves, Dr., “Pharmacopoeia,” i. 37. Greenfield, i. 461. Griffin, Rev. Edmund D., ii. 234. Grosvenor, Lord, i. 422. Guiccioli, Countess, i. 409; ii. 83; Murray’s kindness to, ii. 422; Brockedon’s portrait of, ii. 423. Gurney, Joseph, ii. 490. Gurwood, Col., editor of “Wellington Despatches,” ii. 287. Haber, Baron de, ii. 343; ii. 347. Hall, Capt. Basil, ii. 61; ii. 248. Hall, Sir James, ii. 61. Hall, S. C., ii. 205; ii. 209. Hallam, Henry, i. 285; friendship with Murray, ii. 61; “Middle Ages,” ii. HEAD. 61; ii. 241; “Constitutional History,” ii. 240; angry with Murray about Southey’s review of “Constitutional History,” ii. 263; “Literary History of Europe,” ii. 434. Hamilton, Walter, “Description of Hindostan and Adjacent Countries,” ii. 151; “East India Gazetteer,” i. 278; ii. 85. Hamilton, Sir William, i. 479. Hamilton, Terrick, “Life and Adventures of Antar,” ii. 76. Hammond, i. 269; i. 288. Handbooks, Murray’s, ii. 459 et seq.; extracts from Murray’s letters while travelling abroad, ii. 463 et seq. Hanson, Mr. (Byron’s solicitor), i. 360, 361; i. 386; ii. 305. Harness, Rev. Wm., ii. 401. Harris, Sir W. Cornwallis, ii. 441. Harrison, Thomas, i. 278. Hastings, Warren, i. 30. Hato, or Hatagee, Greek child adopted by Byron, i. 435. Havelock, Sir Henry, ii. 444. Hawkesbury, Lord, i. 116. Hay, R. W., ii. 177. Hazlitt, William, his libellous pamphlet on Gifford, i. 263; action for libel against Blackwood and Murray, i. 482, 486; i. 491—493; “Political Essays,” ii. 40; “Round Table,” ii. 44. Head, Sir Francis B., sent to inspect mines in the Rio de la Plata, ii. 252; Rapid Journeys across the Pampas, etc., ii. 253; a regular contributor to the Q. R., ii. 267; “Life of Bruce, the African Traveller,” ii. 301; “at home” on most subjects, ii. 356; dines with Lord Clarendon, ibid.; in Clowes’ Office, ibid.; “Bubbles from the Brunnen,” ii. 358; appointed Assistant Commissioner of Poor Laws; on Workhouses, ii. 360; nicknamed “The Old Man,” ii. 361; letter to Murray on Langenschwalbach, ii. 362; the Schwein General’s pig-whip, ii.364; appointed Lt.-Governor of Upper Canada, ii. 365; letters to Murray from Canada, ii. 365 et seq.; difficulties in Canada, ii. 367, 368; resigns his office and returns to London; publishes his “Vindication,” ii. 369; Narrative of his Administration, ii. 370, 372; opinion HEBER. of Fanny Kemble’s “Journal,” ii. 403; criticism of the Factory System, ii. 451; some of bis articles in Q. R.—“Cornish Mining in America,” ii. 268; “Locomotion by Steam, or Railroads for Ireland,” ii. 371; “British Policy—a Strange Story,” “The Printer’s Devil,” “Catlin’s Red Man in Canada and North America,” ii. 372; “British Policy,” ii. 454. Heber, Bishop (Rev. Reginald), i. 107; i. 165. Heber, Richard, i. 97; i. 107; i. 221; M.P. for Oxford, i. 425. Hemans, Mrs., “Records of Woman,” i. 342; “The Restoration of the Arts,” “Elgin Marbles,” “Monody on the Princess Charlotte,” Abencerrages, ii. 32; “Vespers of Palermo,” ii. 33; “Forest Sanctuary,” ii. 243. Henley, Lord, ii. 377. Henslow, Professor, ii. 267. Herschell, Sir John, on Dr. Young’s theory of light, i. 92; on Mrs. Somerville’s “Mechanism of the Heavens,” ii. 406. Hervey, Lady, “Letters, etc.,” ii. 85. Hervey, Lord, persecuted by Pope, i. 393. Highley, Samuel, i. 27; i. 29. Hoare, Sir R. C., “Antiquities of Wiltshire,” i. 278. Hoare, Prince, “Epochs of the Arts,” i. 235. Hobhouse, John Cam (Lord Broughton), i. 207; “Journey through Albania, etc., with Lord Byron,” “Last Reign of Napoleon,” i. 338; visits Byron at Venice, i. 388-390; his inscription for Thorwaldsen’s Bust of Byron, i. 391; on Byron’s intention to visit S. America, i. 409; imprisoned for breach of privilege, i. 410; “My boy Hobby O!”—his account of the Whig Club at Cambridge, i. 417; grievance against Bowles, i. 421; on “Cain,” i. 425; Byron’s executor, i. 436; anxiety about a complete edition of Byron’s Works, ii. 305. Hoche, General, ii. 26. Hodgson, Rev. Francis, i. 210; i. 219; i. 443; “The Friends,” ii. 34. HUNT. Hogg, James, (the Ettrick Shepherd) “Mountain Bard,” and “Shepherd’s Guide,” i. 80; “The Queen’s Wake,” i. 256; i. 344; ii. 2-5; “The Pilgrims of the Sun,” i. 244; correspondence with Murray, i. 344~349; “The Thistle and the Rose,” i. 346; Duke of Buccleuch gives him a farm, ibid.; supposed to be author of “Tales of my Landlord,” i. 473; contributor to “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 477; said to be author of the “Chaldee Manuscript,” i. 479; “Mador of the Moor,” ii. 2; helped by Scott and Murray, ii. 3; “Jacobite Relics of Scotland,” ii. 15. Holland, Lord, i. 366; “Life of Lope de Vega and Inez de Castro,” i. 369; on Napoleon’s treatment at St. Helena, i. 383; opinion of “Tales of my Landlord,” i. 470; proposals to Murray about the Waldegrave and Walpole Memoirs, ii. 88. Holland, Rev. W. (Canon of Chichester), ii. 195. Holmes, James, the miniature painter, i. 424. Hood,Thomas, “Whims and Oddities,” ii. 244. Hook, Theodore, a constant guest of Murray’s: witty encounter with Lord Robertson, ii. 424; extempore song on Murray, ii. 425. Hope, Thomas, “Anastasios, or Memoirs of a Modern Greek, etc.,” ii. 74. Hope, Sir William, i. 442. Hoppner, i. 118. Horton, Sir Robert Wilmot, i. 251; letter from Murray with particulars of the destruction of Byron’s Memoirs, i. 445. Howard, Mrs., ii. 93. Hucknall Torkard Church, Byron’s funeral at, i. 437. Hughes, Rev. J. B., ii. 314. Hughes, Canon, ii. 158. Hume, Joseph, i. 30; i. 34; “Essay on Miracles,” ii. 380. Hunt, John, i. 154. Hunt, Leigh, i. 154; joint Editor of the “Examiner”; in gaol for libelling Prince Regent, i. 308; correspondence with Murray about “Story of Rimini,” i. 308-313; “Recollections of Lord Byron and some of his Con- HUNTER. temporaries,” ii. 306; “Taller,” ii. 322. Hunter, Alexander G., i. 57; i. 60, 61. Hunter, Charles, i. 59. Hurst, Robinson & Co., ii. 212. Inchbald, Mrs., i. 121. Ireland, Dr. John (Dean of Westminster), i. 99; i. 202; proposed burial of Byron in the Abbey, i. 436; Gifford’s executor, ii. 44; his advice as to Q. R., ii. 161; Byron’s statue, ii. 331. Irish pirates, i. 20. Irving, Peter, ii. 127. Irving, Washington, (pseudonym “Diedrich Knickerbocker,”) “Salmagundi,” “History of New York,” ii. 126; account of a dinner at Murray’s, ii. 127; visit to Abbotsford; “Sketch Book,” ii. 128; description of Gifford, ii. 130; “Bracebridge Hall,” ii. 132; “Tales of a Traveller,” ii. 133; letter from Murray as to “Representative,” ii. 215; Rev. E. D. Griffin’s description of him, ii. 235; “Voyages of Columbus,” ii. 255; “Conquest of Granada,” ii. 256; negotiations with Murray, ii. 257; “Tales of the Alhambra,” ii. 261; Bohn issues pirated edition of his works, ii. 262; his negotiations with American publishers on behalf of Moore (“Life of Byron”) ii. 3i9. Isaaco’s Journal, i. 240. James, G. P. R., describes his method of composition, ii. 374. Jameson, Mrs., “Guide to the Picture Galleries of London,” ii. 445. Jeffrey, Lord, recommends Carlyle to Murray, ii. 349; his interview with Murray, ii. 351. Jeffrey, Francis, Editor of “Edinburgh Review,” i. 78; opinion of Wordsworth, (Southey, and Coleridge, i. 92; Miss Seward’s opinion of him, ibid.; .Southey’s opinion of him, i. 95; “Don Cevallos on the Occupation of Spain,” i. 97; party politics in Ed. Rev., i. 120. Jenner, Dr., treatise on Vaccination, i. 36. KRUSENSTERN. Jephson, Dr., ii. 426. Jerdan, William, his erroneous account in Literary Gazette of destruction of Byron’s Memoirs, i. 444; on Gifford, ii. 175; letter from Murray as to “Representative,” ii. 204. Jocelyn, Lord, ii. 415. Kean, Charles, in “Bertram,” i. 293; in “Manuel,” i. 296. Keats’ “Endymion” reviewed in Q. R., i. 481. Keith, Dr., on the “Prophecies,” ii. 379. Kelly, Sir Fitzroy, ii. 262. Kemble, Charles, ii. 369. Kemble, Fanny, (Mrs. Pierce Butler) introduced to Murray, ii. 396; Milman’s opinion of her “Francis the First,” ii. 397; letters to Murray, ii. 398; in America: marriage, ii. 399; “Journal in America,” ii. 400; dissatisfied with the review in Q. R., ii. 404. Kemble, John, “History of the Anglo-Saxons,” ii. 399; his bitter attack on Mrs. Norton, ii. 413. Kerr, William, i. 14. Kerr, Robert, i. 21; i. 27. Kinnaird, Honble. Douglas, and “Childe Harold,” i. 367; copyrights of Byron’s Works, i. 374; with Byron at Venice, i. 387; letter to Murray, i. 402; Mrs. Norton’s anecdote of, ii. 412. Kinnear, John G., ii. 441. Kinneil House, property of Dugald Stewart: Watts’ first steam engine erected at, i. 256. Kinneir, Macdonald, “Persia,” i. 236. Kinsburg, Miss Harriet (Mrs. Maturin), i. 292. Kirk & Co., ii. 27. Knight, Charles, printer of “Guardian” at Windsor, ii. 113; correspondence with Murray, ii. 251; “Library of Entertaining Knowledge,” ii. 296; remarks on Murray’s honourable conduct, ii. 513. Knight, H. Gally, i. 67; ii. 2; ii. 323; “Poems” and “Persian Tales,” ibid. Knowles, Sheridan, tragedy of “Virginius,” ii. 101. Krusenstern’s “Voyage round the World,” i. 69. LAMB. Lamb, Lady Caroline, i. 250; i. 368; “Glenarvon,” i. 378; opinion of Byron’s works, ibid.; i. 380; correspondence with Murray, i. 380; i. 411; anecdote of her dog, i. 380; remarks on Isaac D’Israeli, i. 405; meets Byron’s funeral procession: her illness: Byron’s letters, i. 437; invitation to Murray, ii. 69; “Penruddock,” “Ada Reis,” ii. 143. Lamb, Charles, i. 200. Lamb, Honble. George, i. 288; i. 296; i. 396. Lamb, Honble. William (Lord Melbourne), ii. 143, 144. Lamennais’ “Paroles d’un Croyant,” ii. 233. Landor, W. S., “Remarks upon C. J. Fox’s Memoirs,” i. 199. Landseer, Sir Edwin, ii. 431. Langhorne, Dr. John, “Fables of Florian,” “Plutarch’s Lives,” i. 8. Laplace, “Mecanique Celeste,” i. 123; ii. 406. Lardner, Dr., “Cyclopaedia,” ii. 271. La Rochejacquelin, “Narrative of the Campaign in La Vende’e,” ii. 29. Latrobe, Charles J., First Governor of Port Philip, his letter to Murray giving account of South Australia, ii. 456. Lauderdale, Lord, ii. 88. Lavater on Physiognomy, i. 23; i. 26; i. 28. Lawrence, Sir Thos., paints Moore’s portrait, ii. 318. Leckie, G. F., “Balance of Power in Europe,” ii. 29. Leigh, Honble. Augusta, i. 368; her wish that Byron’s Memoirs should be destroyed, i. 443; her appeal to Murray, ii. 114. Leslie (the artist), ii. 256. Leslie, Sir John, “Buffon’s Nat. Hist. of Birds,” “Dict. of Chemistry,” “Essays on Natural Philosophy,” i. 25; ii. 375. Levinge, Godfrey, ii. 483. Lewis, Matthew Gregory (“Monk” Lewis), i. 395. Leyden’s “Africa,” ii. 63, 64. Lieven, Prince, i. 280. Lincoln, Lord, ii. 384. Lindo, Mr. and Mrs., i. 247. Listen, Sir Robert, i. 23. LOCKHART. Liverpool, Lord, ii. 52; ii. Si; his assistance to Gifford, ii. 171. Llandaff, Bishop of, “Lord Dudley’s Letters,” ii. 442. Llangollen, Ladies of, ii. 303. Locker, F. H., ii. 165, 166. Lockhart, John, the “Little-john” to whom Scott’s “Tales of a Grandfather” were addressed, ii. 270. Lockhart, John Gibson, i. 245; contributor to “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 477; article on “The Cockney School of Poetry,” i. 479; challenges the anonymous author of “Hypocrisy Unveiled, etc.,” i. 488; “Peter’s Letters to his Kinsfolk,” i. 494; called “M.” by B. Disraeli, ii. 187; at Chiefswood, ii. 189; B. Disraeli’s visit, ii. 190; editorship of “Representative” offered to him, ii. 196; Scott’s opinion of him, ii. 197; ii. 220; ii. 229; accepts editorship of Q. R., ii. 200; ii. 219; sympathy with Murray on failure of “Representative,” ii. 212; “Spanish Ballads,” “Reviews and Essays,” “Valerius,” “Adam Blair,” ii. 219; his success as Editor of Q. R., ii. 232; interview with Murray, ii. 233; an American’s description of him, ii. 235; opinion of Milman’s poetry, ii. 244; of Wordsworth’s poems, ii. 245; of Washington Irving’s works, ii. 259; of Q. R. and Roman Catholic Emancipation, ii. 269; visit to Brighton with Scott, ii. 270; interview with Duke of Wellington, ibid.; at Abbottford, ii. 273; ii. 276; “Life of Napoleon,” ii. 274; ii. 296; Scott’s death: writes his “Life,” ii. 278; remarks on Croker’s edition of “Boswell’s Johnson,” ii. 289; on Taylor’s “Isaac Comnenus,” ii. 291; opinion of early part of Moore’s “Life of Byron,” ii. 315; reviews “Life of Byron” in Q. R., ii. 326; opinion of “Contarini Fleming,” ii. 335; of “Sartor Resartus,” ii. 353; thinks Murray should reduce the Q. R. Editor’s honorarium, ii. 377; tries to induce Croker to write political articles for Q. R., ii. 381; Mrs. Lockhart’s death, ii. 383; referred to by Mrs. Norton as “Adam Blair,” ii. 412; an admirable Editor of Q. R. ii. 448; Ticknor’s opinion of him, ii. LONG. 449; declines Carlyle’s pamphlet on “Chartism,” ii. 453; visits Mr. Morritt at Rokeby, ibid.; article on Sorrow’s “Bible in Spain,” ii. 492; John Sterling’s opinion of him, ii. 498; article in Q. R. on Copyright Question, ii. 499; his remarks on Mitchell’s “Notes on Aristophanes,” ii. 500; his illness, ii. 505; article in Q. R. on Theodore Hook, ibid.; on Wilkie, ii. 506. Long, i. 116. Longman & Co., breach with Constable, i. 60; Murray’s intervention, i. 61; injunction as to Edin. Rev., i. 78; accept £1000 for claim on Edin. Rev., i. 80: Coleridge’s “Wallenstein,” i. 301; Mme. de Stael’s works, i. 317; offer to Campbell, i. 322; Campbell’s “Collected Poems,” i. 334; Crabbe’s poems declined, ii. 72; Sir C. Bell’s “Anatomy of Expression,” ii. 119; advertise an edition of Mrs. Rundell’s “Domestic Cookery,” ii. 120; injunction granted to Murray, ii. 123; receive from Murray £3000 on account of Moore for “Life of Byron,” ii. 312; refuse to publish “Sartor Resartus,” ii. 352. Longman, Thos., on the danger of reading in bed, ii. 440. Lowe, on the West Indian Question, i. 120. Lyall, Archdeacon, i. 284. Lyell, Charles, articles in Q. R. on Scrope’s “Volcanoes of France,” “Transactions of the Geological Society,” “The State of the Universities,” ii. 267; remarks on the stagnation of publishing trade in Paris, ii. 390. Lyndhurst, Lord, ii. 79; ii. 82. Lyon, Capt., “Private Journal during recent Voyage of Discovery under Captain Parry,” ii. 145. Lyttelton, Lord, “Dialogues of the Dead,” “History of King Henry II.,” i. 6. Maas, of Coblentz, ii. 202. Macaulay, Lord, his articles in Edin. Rev. on Croker’s “Boswell’s Johnson,” ii. 289; Hallam’s “Constitutional History,” ii. 435; Gladstone’s “Church and State,” ii. 437. MAWMAN. Macdonald, Sir John, ii. 396. Macirone, Col., ii. 78. Mackay, the actor, ii. 280. Mackenzie, Col., i. 7. Mackenzie, Dr. Shelton, his recollections of meeting between Southey and Wordsworth, ii. 390. Mackintosh, Lady, ii. 69. Mackintosh, Sir James, i. 220; i. 222; i. 365; ii. 214. McLean, Mrs. (nee Landon) (L. E. L.), a pension granted to her by Sir R. Peel, through Murray’s influence, ii 446. Macleod, John, “Voyage of H. M. S. Alceste to Loochoo,” ii. 29. Macnab, Col., ii. 368. Macready, W. C., ii. 101. Maginn, Dr., i. 477; ii. 200; ii. 209; ii. 214. Magnus, Samuel, his testimonial to Dean Milman, ii. 300. Mahon, Lord (Earl Stanhope), ii. 384; opinion of the Q. R., and of Gladstone’s “Church and State,” ii. 439. Malcolm, Sir John, i. 230; i. 236; i. 268; friendship with Murray, i. 341; “History of Persia,” “Instructions to Young Officers,” i. 342; “Bengal Army,” ii. 29; “Sketches of Persia,” ii. 149. Malthus, i. 107; “Rent,” “Corn-Laws,” “Essay on Population,” i. 283; ii. 237. Manners & Miller, ii. 73. Markham, Mrs., “History of England,” ii. 152. Marmontel’s Tales, i. 69. Marsh, Charles, ii. 114. Mason, Rev. William (T. Gray’s executor), controversy with Murray, i. 15; “Horace Walpole’s Letters,” ii. 294. Massinger’s plays, edited by Gifford, i. 138. Maturin, Rev. Chas. Robert, i. 288; his early life and marriage; “The Fatal Revenge,” “The Wild Irish Boy,” “The Milesian Chief,” “Bertram,” i. 292; “Bertram at Drury Lane,” i. 293; “Manuel,” i. 295; his death, i. 296. Maule, Fox, of Brechin Castle, i. 71. Mavrocordato, Prince, i. 435. Mawman, Joseph, i. 58. MEDWIN. Medwin, Capt. Thomas, “Conversasations of Lord Byron,” i. 450; ii. 323. Melbourne, Lord, ii. 143, 144 (see Lamb). Mellish, i. 51. Memoires pour servir, ii. 85-93. Merivale, J. H., 1.231; “Orlando in Roncesvalles,” i. 278. Merry, Robert, i. 136. Milbanke, Miss, i. 251. Mill, James, “History of British India,” i. 155; on Murray’s kindness to him, ii. 35. Mill, John Stuart, ii. 499. Millar, Professor John, i. 10; i. 26. Miller, John, ii. 77; ii. 114; a frequent contributor to Q. R., ii. 318. Miller, Robert, i. 145. Miller, William, of Albemarle Street, i. 195, 196; i. 205; i. 233 Mills, James, i. 120. Milman, Dean (Rev. H. H.), “Fazio,” ii. 101; “Samor,” “Fall of Jerusalem,” ii. 102; “Martyr of Antioch,” ii. 104; “Belshazzar,” ii. 105; “Anne Boleyn,” ii. 106; ii. 243; one of Murray’s Historians, ii. 107; remarks on Coleridge’s appointment to Q. R., ii. 169; article on “Church Patronage,” ii. 269; “History of the Jews,” received with disapprobation; his remarks on Sharon Turner’ Expostulation; testimonial from the Jews, ii. 297-300; “History of Christianity,” ii. 301; opinion of “Contarini Fleming,” ii. 338; review of Fanny Kemble’s “Francis the First,” ii. 397; visit to Sydney Smith at Combe Florey, ii. 436. Mirza, Abul Hassan, impressions of English Society, ii. 147. Missiaglia, Signor Gio. Bata., i. 393. Mitchell, Thomas, on Byron’s death, i. 449; translation of “Aristophanes,” ii. 18; contributor to Q. R., and “Blackwood’s Magazine,” ii. 20; impressions of Ugo Foscolo, ii. 136; on Gifford’s health, ii. 172; on Murray’s health, ii. 211; visit to Southey, ii. 264; views on the Copyright Bill, ii. 500; Sir R. Peel’s generosity to; Lockhart’s remarks on his “Aristophanes,” ibid.; opinion of Murray, ii. 519. Mitford, “History of Greece,” i. 14; MURAT. i. 23; “Harmony of Language,” i. 370. Moira, Lord, ii. 322. Monk, Bishop, ii. 48. Monro, Dr. Alexander, i. 19. Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley, her “Letters,” i. 278; persecuted by Pope, i. 393. Monthly Register, ii. 65. Moorcroft, William, ii. 173. Moore, Dr., “Zeluco,” i. 12. Moore, Carrick, ii. 239. Moore, Sir John, ii. 281. Moore, Thomas, i. 220; opinion of “The Corsair,” i. 223; Byron dedicates “The Corsair” to him, i. 226; presented with Byron’s Memoirs; offers them to Longman; accepted by Murray; their destruction, i. 438 et seq.; reconciled to Murray and undertakes “Life of Byron,” i. 451; his views on Cookery Books, and on Mrs. Rundell’s “Domestic Cookery,” ii. 123; ii. 125; an American’s description of him, ii. 234; breakfast at Rogers’, ii. 292; note of Peter Pindar’s remark about booksellers, ii. 293; agreement with Murray as to “Life of Byron,” receives £3000 from Murray for “Life,” ii. 312; ii. 307 et seq.; requests Murray to see Fletcher (Byron’s servant), ii. 311; receives an offer of £1 1s,. a line for refuse of “Byron’s Life,” ii. 313; illness of his only daughter, Anastasia, ibid.; verses written at his daughter’s request; ii. 314; Lockhart’s opinion of the “Life,” ii. 315; daughter’s death, ii. 316; portrait by Lawrence, ii. 317; Vol. I. of “Life,” published, ii. 318; Washington Irving’s negotiations with American publishers for “Life,” ii. 319; residence with Murray, ii. 320; Vol. II. of “Life,” published; Mrs. Somerville’s opinion of it, ibid.; controversy with Murray about payment for the “Life;” Murray’s statement, ii. 324, 325; “Thoughts on Editors,” ii. 326; Murray’s proposal as to a complete edition of Byron’s works, ii. 327. Morgan, Lady, ii. 65; ii. 123. Morier, James, “Hajji Baba,” ii. 146. Morritt, of Rokeby Park, i. 104; i. 216; ii. 453. Murat, King of Naples, ii. 78. MURCHISON. Murchison, Sir Roderick I., visit to Russia, ii. 392; Ticknor dining with, ii. 449. Murdoch, Thomas, ii. 66. Musgrave, T. M., ii. 243. Murray, Archibald, R.N., visit to and description of Byron at Pisa, i. 429. Murray, Sir George, ii. 284. Murray, Joe (Byron’s Steward), i. 254. Murray I., John. 1745-68—his birth and early years, i. 1, 2. 1768—marriage and retirement from Royal Marines, i. 3; offers partnership to W. Falconer, i. 4; purchases W. Sandby’s business, i. 6; early publications, ibid. 1769-70—support from Sir R. Gordon and his old comrades i. 1; money difficulties, i. 8; agents in Ireland and Scotland, i. 9. 1771—publishes Millar’s “Observations concerning the Distinctions of Ranks in Society,” and Whitaker’s “History of Manchester,” i. II; defence of Sir R. Gordon, i. 13. 1777-78—second marriage, i. 21; controversy with Rev. W. Mason, i. 15. 1780—pamphlet on Dr. Cullen, i. 20; “Defence of Captain Innes Monro,” ibid.; “The London Mercury,” i. 21. 1782 to 1793—paralytic stroke, i. 21; his son’s education and character, i. 21, 22; edits “English Review,” i. 12; i. 21; i. 23; sues publishers of “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” i. 24; Dr. Johnson’s funeral, ibid.; visits to Edinburgh, illness and death, i. 27. Murray II., John, called by Lord Byron “The Anak of Publishers,” i. 28; nicknamed “The Emperor of the West,” ii. 496. 1778 to 1792—birth, i. 19; at Edinburgh High School, i. 21; at school at Margate, ibid.; at school at Gosport, i. 22; sight of one eye destroyed, ibid. 1793—at school at Kennington, i. 23. 1795—enters his father’s business firm of Murray & Highley, i. 30. 1802—dissolves partnership with Highley and starts business alone, i. 3i, 32. MURRAY II. 1803—offers to publish Colman’s Comedy “John Bull,” i. 32; money difficulties, i. 34; military duties, i. 35; offers to publish Dr. Jenner’s treatise on Vaccination, i. 36; publishes Dr. Graves’s “Pharmacopceia,” i. 37; general depression of trade, i. 38; publishes “Revolutionary Plutarch,” ibid.; friendship with Isaac D’Israeli, i. 42; Isaac D’Israeli’s “Narrative Poems,” i. 46; business transactions with Constable, i. 58; “Dundonald on Agriculture,” and Dagley’s Book on Gems, ibid.; appoints Constable his agent in Edinburgh; pushes sale of “Edinburgh Review,” i. 59. 1804—correspondence with Rt. Hon. H. Addington, i. 39; “Memoirs of Talleyrand,” and “Female Plutarch,” i. 40; birth of Benjamin Disraeli, i. 47; takes Charles Hunter as apprentice, i. 59. 1805—“Bruce’s Travels,” i. 41; Isaac D’Israeli’s letters to him, i. 43-55; attempts to reconcile Constable and Longman, i. 61-65; expedition to Edinburgh, i. 66; attachment to Miss Elliot, i. 67. 1806—shares with Constable the “Gazetteer of Scotland,” i. 66; drops publication of medical works, i. 67; the “Miniature” and Stratford Canning, i. 67, 68; introduced to George Canning, i. 68; his first letter to Southey, i. 69; close attention to business, ibid.; visits Edinburgh, i. 70; engagement to Miss Elliot, ibid.; financial position, i. 71; appointed publisher of “Edinburgh Review,” i. 77, 80; Campbell’s proposed Magazine and “Selection from British Poets,” i. 324, 325; books published by him during the year, i. 66-69. 1807—marries Miss Elliot; I. D’Israeli one of his Trustees, i. 73; friendship with Sharon Turner, i. 77; injunction in the matter of the “Edinburgh Review,” i. 78; publishes Hogg’s works, i. 80; remonstrates with Constable about drawing bills, i. 81-83! breach with Constable, i. 83; bill transactions with Ballantyne, i. 84; writes MURRAY II. to George Canning proposing a New Review, i. 93. 1808—“Marmion,” and friendship with Scott, i. 76; proposed edition of the “British Novelists,” i. 86-89, 98; De Foe’s works, i. 89; offered by Ballantynea share in the “Edinburgh Annual Register,” ibid.; Mrs. Rundell’s “Domestic Cookery,” i. 90; introduced to Gifford by Stratford Canning, i. 94; visits Scott at Ashestiel, i. 96; Cumberland’s “New Review,” i. 98; correspondence about “Quarterly Review,” i. 98-124; Gifford accepts Editorship, i. 99; Missionary Reports and Southey’s article in Q. R., i. 116, 117; article on Spain for Q. R. by Canning, Gifford, and Ellis, i. 118; correspondence with Mrs. Inchbald, i. 122. 1809—meets Ballantyne at Boroughbridge, i. 139-141; “Marmion Pocket Book,” i. 140; appoints Ballantyne Edinburgh publisher of Q. R., i. 142; Scott’s Life of Swift, ibid.; Q. R., No. I published,i. 143; anxiety about Q. R., i. 148; urges Scott to visit London, i. 150; letter to Stratford Canning, i. 152; exertions to procure contributors, i. 165; close alliance with Ballantyne, i. 170; Grahame’s “British Georgics,” and Scott’s “English Minstrelsy,” ibid.; financial difficulties with Ballantyne, i. 170-73; proposals to Constable, i. 173; letter from Campbell on “Selection from British Poets,” i. 328; Campbell’s Gertrude of “Wyoming,” i. 330. 1810—breach with Ballantyne; appoints W. Blackwood his agent in Scotland, i. 175; Southey’s “Life of Nelson,” i. 177, 178; health giving way, i. 179; money difficulties—Ballantyne’s bills, i. 185; transfers printing business, ibid.; Constable’s bills, i. 186; decrease in circulation of Q. R., i. 188. 1811—intimate friendship with Gifford, i. 192; improvement of Q. R., ibid.; generosity to Gifford, i. 195; origin of his connection Murray II. with Byron, i. 204-207; “Childe Harold,” i. 207-212. 1812—Ballantyne’s bills again, i. 195; purchases stock of Miller, of Albemarle Street, i. 195, 233; removes to Albemarle Street, i. 195, 235; Constable’s bills, i. 196; fmal breach with Constable, i. 197; complete success of Q. R., i. 203; heals breach between Scott and Byron, i. 213, 215; I. D’Israeli’s “Calamities of Authors,” i. 214; visit to Lucien Buonaparte, i. 215; Byron’s “Waltz,” i. 216, 217; friendship with Sir J. Malcolm, i. 236; refuses “The Rejected Addresses,” ii. 77. 1813—“The Giaour,” and “The Bride of Abydos,” i. 219-222; Sir J. Malcolm, i. 236; continuation of I. D’Israeli’s “Curiosities of Literature,” ibid.; Southey’s “Life of Nelson,” and “History of Peninsular War,” i. 238; Scott’s bill transactions, i. 242; sends Gifford news of the Battle of Vittoria, i. 261; Mme. de Stael, her “L’Allemagne,” i.313-316; Mme. de Stae! at Albemarle Street, i. 314; other books published by him during the year, i. 235-6; i. 256, 344. 1814—“The Corsair,” i. 223; “Ode to Napoleon,” i. 228; “Lara and Jacqueline,” i. 229-231; at Brighton, the Prince Regent’s conduct there, i. 232; invitation from Lord Sheffield, ibid.; prosperity of the Q. R., i. 235; Mungo Park’s travels, i. 239, 240; Mrs. Murray’s visit to Leith, i. 240; letters to Mrs. Murray, i. 247-253; visit from Blackwood, i. 247; dines with I. D’Israeli, ibid.; friendship with Lord Sheffield, i. 250; education of his son, John, i. 249, 250; visit to D’Israeli at Brighton, i. 251; description of Newstead Abbey, i. 252-254; Byron’s skull-cup, i. 254; trip to Edinburgh, i. 255; alliance with Blackwood, i. 255, 452; visit to Abbotsford, i. 257; shares in Scott’s “Don Roderick,” i. 258; correspondence with Coleridge about translation of Goethe’s “Faust,” i.297-302; publications during the year, i. 250. MURRAY II. 1815—Drawing-room in Albemarle Street, i. 264-267; Mme. de Stael, i. 266; first meeting of Scott and Byron, i. 266-268; assaulted by thieves, i. 268; Napoleon’s escape from Elba, i. 269; sends first news of Battle of Waterloo to Blackwood i. 269; literary parties, i. 270; portraits of distinguished men, i. 271; trip to Paris with George Basevi, i. 272, 273; Scott’s proposed letters from the Continent, i. 273; the Prussians in Paris—good feeling ot French towards English, incident of the Pont de Jena, i. 275; interviews with Suard, Sismondi, Gerard, and Benjamin Constant, i. 276; visit to Baron Humboldt. i. 277; returns to England and visits D’Israeli, ibid.; Scott’s “Paul’s Letters to his kinsfolk,” i. 277; 286; Mungo Park’s “Travels,” i. 277; Napoleon’s personal correspondence with crowned heads, etc., of Europe, i. 279, 280; publishes Miss Austen’s “Emma,” i. 282; inundated with poems and novels, i. 283; begins to publish Malthus’ works, ibid.; correspondence with Leigh Hunt as to the “Story of Rimini,” i. 309, 310; with Mrs. Graham, i. 319; declines John Wilson’s “City of the Plague;” i. 343; correspondence with James Hogg, i. 344, 349; opinion of Lady Byron, i. 347; dealings with Byron, i. 350 et seq.; his liberal offer to Byron, i. 353; “Siege of Corinth” and “Parisina,” i. 353, et seq.; remonstrates with Byron, i. 355; correspondence with Blackwood, i. 453; other books published by him during the year; Croker’s “Talavera,” i. 265-280. 1816—Kindness to Rev. C. R. Maturin, i. 293-296; Coleridge’s “Glycine: a Song,” “Remorse,” “Zapolya,” “Christabel,” and “Christmas Tale,” i. 303, 304; correspondence with Leigh Hunt, i. 310-313; Baron de Stael’s proposal about his mother’s works, i. 316-318; Gifford’s illness, i. 337; gives Gifford a carriage, ibid.; Sir J. Malcolm, a frequent guest, i. 341; entrusted with sale of Byron’s MURRAY II. books and furniture, i. 360 et seq.; buys some of Byron’s books, the large screen (now at Albemarle Street), and silver cup, i. 362; Byron’s “Sketch from Private Life,” i. 363; Byron leaves England, i. 364; “Childe Harold,” and “The Prisoner of Chillon,” i. 365, 369; letter to Byron on the “Monody on Sheridan,” i. 366; correspondence with Honourable Augusta Leigh, Lady Byron and Lady C. Lamb, i. 368; “Tales of my Landlord,” i. 369, 469; Ballantyne’s proposal about Scott’s works, i. 457 et seq.; his assistance, to Hogg, ii. 3, 4; other books published by him during the year, i. 338; ii. 2. 1817—Correspondence with Coleridge, i. 305-307; 10,000 of Q. R. printed i. 372; Scott’s review of “Childe Harold,” Canto III. i. 374; letters from Lady C. Lamb, i. 378-380; Mrs. Graham’s remarks on Byron, i. 381; “Manfred,” i. 382; “Manuscrit venu de Ste. Helene,” i. 383; “The Lament of Tasso,” i. 384; “Childe Harold,” Canto IV., i. 385; remarks on Mme. de Stael’s death, i. 386; Capt. James Riley’s Narrative, ii. 28; Mrs. Hemans’ works, ii. 32, 33; Captain Basil Hall’s “Fragments of Voyages and Travels,” ii. 61, 62; correspondence with Lady Abercorn, ii. 63; Giovanni Belzoni, ii. 95; Washington Irving at Albemarle Street, ii. 127; other books published by him during the year, i. 370-2; ii. 29, 96. 1818—“Beppo,” i. 392; Byron’s Miscellaneous Poems, i. 394; pecuniary help to Mrs. Leigh, i. 396; visit to Scott, i. 397; “Don Juan,” Canto I., i. 401; takes share in “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 480; remonstrates with Blackwood on the personality of the Magazine Articles, i. 479, 482-485; the anonymous pamphlet “Hypocrisy Unveiled,” i. 487; assailed by a pamphlet, entitled “A Letter to Mr. John Murray of Albemarle Street, etc.,” i. 490; Hazlitt’s libel action, i. 491; correspondence with Scott, MURRAY II. ii. 7; Mitchell’s “Aristophanes,” ii. 18-20; “Whistlecraft,” etc., ii. 21-25; friendship with Hallam—publishes “Middle Ages,” ii. 61; the proposed “Monthly Register,” ii. 65; Crabbe’s “Tales of the Hall,” and other poems, ii. 71, 72; Rev. H. H. Milman, ii. 102; refuses partnership in “Daily Sun,” offered by John Taylor, and in “Literary Gazette,” offered by William Jerdan, ii. 181; other books published by him during the year, ii. 68; ii. 102. 1819—Campbell’s “Selections from British Poets,” i. 334; suggestions to Byron about “Don Juan,” Canto II., i. 401; “Mazeppa” and “The Ode to Venice,” ii. 403; Blackwood refuses to sell “Don Juan,” i. 404; copyright of “Don Juan” infringed—injunction applied for and granted, i. 405-408; retires from “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 494; transfers his Scottish Agency to Oliver and Boyd, i. 495; visit from Scott’s son, ii. 16; Mrs. Brunton’s “Emmeline,” ii. 73; Thomas Hope’s “Anastasius,” ii. 73-75; threatened by Colonel Macirone with libel action, ii. 78-80; verdict in his favour, ii. 82; buys house at Wimbledon, ii. 82; literary levees at Albemarle Street, ii. 83; his acquaintance with Ugo Foscolo, ii. 135. 1820—“Don Juan, cantos III and IV.” i. 411; “Prophecy of Dante,” “Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice,” i. 412; Hobhouse’s anger—the “My boy Hobby O!” incident, i. 417; Milman’s “Fall of Jerusalem,” ii. 102-104; B. Disraeli first mentioned, ii. 107; contemplates starting a Foreign Quarterly Review, ii. 113; partner with Croker in “Guardian,” ii. 113; 181; Washington Irving’s “Sketch-Book,” ii. 129; other books published by him during the year, ii. 50, 95, 108. 1821—Cantos III., IV., and V. of “Don Juan,” i. 413; refuses to publish further cantos of “Don Juan,” ibid.; Byron’s pamphlet on Bowles, i. 420; “Sardanapalus,” MURRAY II. i. 421, 425; “The Two Foscari,” “Cain, a Mystery,” i. 422- 425; present with Scott at Coronation of George IV., i. 423; Moore’s “Memoirs,” i. 425; injunction in case of “Cain,” i. 426-428; A Remonstrance by Oxoniensis, i. 426, 427; accepts Byron’s “Memoirs,” i. 440; Mrs. Graham’s letter to him about Sir Charles Eastlake, ii. 115; pirated copies of Byron’s works in America and France, ii. 116; death of his son, William, ii. 117; injunction obtained restraining sale by Longman of Mrs. Rundell’s “Domestic Cookery,” ii. 121; other books published by him during the year, ii. 87-119. 1822—Death of Allegro, i. 430; Milman’s “Martyr of Antioch,” “Belshazzar,” and “Anne Boleyn,” ii. 105, 106; intimacy with Milman, ii. 107; “Bracebridge Hall,” ii. 132; declines James Fenimore Cooper’s novels, ii. 135; Ugo Foscolo, ii. 138, 140; Mrs. Graham’s “Residence in Chili,” ii. 150; Mrs. Marianna Starke’s “Guide for Travellers on the Continent,” the forerunner of Murray’s Handbooks, ii. 151; Crofton Croker’s “Fairy Legends and Traditions of the South of Ireland,” ii. 152. 1823—Intimacy with Allan Cunningham, ii. 152; Gifford’s serious illness—difficulty in choosing new editor for the Q. R., ii. 155 et seq.; refuses Robert Baldwin’s offer of the “British Review,” ii. 181; other books published by him during the year, ii. 145-150. 1824—Closing incidents of friendship with Byron, i. 433; Byron’s last letter and illness, i. 434; Byron’s death, i. 436; correspondence with Dr. Ireland (Dean of Westminster) about Byron’s burial in Westminster Abbey, ibid.; Byron’s funeral at Hucknall Torkard Church: Lady C. Lamb’s letter on his death, i. 437; destruction of Byron’s “Memoirs,” i. 442, 448; pamphlet on “Conversations of Byron,” i. 451; Washington MURRAY II. Irving’s “Tales of a Traveller,” ii. 134; Mrs. Markham’s “History of England,” ii. 152; a crisis in the Q. R.; John Taylor Coleridge appointed Editor of Q. R., ii. 164; liberality to Gifford, ii. 169, 170; correspondence with B. Disraeli about “Aylmer Papillon,” ii. 182. 1825—Agreement and arrangements regarding proposed morning paper, “Representative,” ii. 186; letters from B. Disraeli as to “Representative,” ii. 187 et seq.; I. D’Israeli’s views on the “Representative,” ii. 193; offers editorship of “Representative” to Lockhart—Scott’s opinion of the scheme, ii. 196-199; visit from Lockhart, ii. 198; secures foreign correspondents for “Representative,” ii. 203; his own opinion of the scheme, ii. 204; bears the whole expense, ii. 207; appoints Lockhart Editor of Q. R. on Coleridge’s resignation, ii. 219; letters to him from Scott on Lockhart’s fitness for the Q. R. editorship, ii. 220, 229; letters from Lockhart, ii. 224 et seq.; publishes important works on voyages and travels, ii. 239; Hallam’s “Constitutional History,” ii. 242; renews friendship with Constable after fifteen years’ interval, ii. 247; other books published by him during the year, ii. 238-254. 1826—“Representative” started—its utter failure, ii. 208-210; health breaks down, ii. 211; commercial crisis and failure of large publishing houses, Constable & Co., Ballontyne & Co., Hurst, Robinson & Co., and others, ibid.; helps London publishers in their difficulties, ii. 214; “Representative” ceases to exist after career of six months, ii. 214, 215; misunderstanding with I. D’Israeli, ii. 215-218; intimacy with Lockhart, ii. 233; Southey’s “History of Peninsular War,” ii. 239; Alaric A. Watts’ “Lyrics of the Heart,” ii. 243; Mrs. Hemans’ “Forest Sanctuary,” ii. 245; declines Thomas Hood’s “Whims and Oddities,” ibid.; Wordsworth’s proposal to him, ibid. Murray II. 1827—An American’s description of the Entertainments at Albemarle Street, ii. 234; letter from his son describing Scott’s acknowledgment of the authorship of Waverley Novels at the Theatrical Fund dinner in Edinburgh, ii. 279; Crofton Croker’s “Irish Fairy Legends,” ii. 291; Henry Taylor’s “Isaac Comnenus,” ii. 291; buys all Byron’s works, ii. 306; his proposal to purchase copyright of a selection of Shelley’s works, ii. 309. 1828—Washington Irving’s “Voyages of Columbus,” and “Conquest of Granada,” ii. 257, 258; Hallam’s angry protest against Southey’s review in Q. R. of “Constitutional History of England,” ii. 263; Hallam’s “History of Literature,” ii. 264; Milman advocates independence of Q. R., ii. 269; offers Scott £1250 for copyright of “History of Scotland,” ii. 271; “Tales of a Grandfather,” ii. 272; Napier’s “History of Peninsular War,” ii. 283; the “Wellington Despatches,” ii. 287; “Library of Entertaining Knowledge,” ii. 295, 296; negotiations with Moore as to “Life of Byron,” ii. 312. 1829—Resigns his share in “Marmion” to Scott, ii. 275; Croker’s edition of “Boswell’s Johnson,” ii. 287; Dr. Paris’ “Philosophy in Sport, etc.,” ii. 294; the Family Library, ii. 296; tour in West of England and Wales—his visit to Miss Ponsonby, the survivor of the Ladies of Llangollen, ii. 303; requests Moore to sit to Sir Thomas Lawrence for his portrait, ii. 317; assistance to Moore, ii. 318. 1830—Milman’s “History of the Jews”—Sir Francis Head’s “Life of Bruce,” ii. 301; Sir John Barrow’s “Mutiny of the Bounty,” ii. 302; Moore’s “Life of Byron,” Vol. I.—Moore staying at Albemarle Street, ii. 320; renewal of correspondence with B. Disraeli and negotiations with him as to “Contarini Fleming: a Psychological Biography,” ii. 332-340; makes a Murray II. rule to decline poetical works in future, ii. 374; refuses Taylor’s “Philip van Artevelde,” ibid.; Professor John Leslie, ii. 375; offer to Mrs. Somerville for her “Mechanism of the Heavens,” ii. 406; visit to Aix—its geological interest, ii. 464. 1831—Loss on Washington Irving’s works, ii. 260; Moore’s “Life of Byron,” Vol. II., ii. 320, 321; dispute with Moore about payment for the “Life”—statement of the expenses, etc., ii. 325; Moore’s “Thoughts on Editors,” ii. 326; Thomas Carlyle recommended to him by Lord Jeffrey, ii. 349; “Sartor Resartus”—which he ultimately declines to publish, ii. 350 et seq.; troublous times for the Q. R., ii. 377; letters from Fanny Kemble, ii. 398; Mrs. Somerville’s “Mechanism of the Heavens,” ii. 407; John Murray junior’s visit to Padre Pasquale Aucher in the Armenian Convent, Island of Lazaro, ii. 464; introduced at Trieste to Mr. Barry, Byron’s tutor, ii. 465; at Munich during the cholera scare, ii. 466, 467. 1832—Washington Irving’s “Recollections of Abbotsford and Newstead,” ii. 261: complete edition of Byron’s works, ii. 327; Mrs. Shelley’s appeal on her father’s behalf, ii. 328; correspondence with Benjamin Disraeli about “Gallomania,” ii. 341 et seq.; Sir Francis Head’s “Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau,” ii. 358; Crabbe’s death—his loss on Crabbe’s poems—publishes his “Life,” ii. 385; Dr. Paris’ metrical acknowledgment to him for “Crabbe’s Life,” ii. 386. 1833—Head’s “Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau,” ii. 359; Charles Lyell’s care, industry, etc., ii. 391; cottage on Hampstead Heath, ii. 426; John Murray junior visits Liege—the difficulties of travelling in those days, ii. 468. 1834—Dean of Westminster refuses his request that Thorwaldsen’s Statue of Byron should be placed MURRAY II. in Westminster Abbey, ii. 330; letters from Head on Workhouses, ii. 360; Mrs. Somerville’s portrait by Phillips, ii. 408; offer from Mrs. Norton of “The Maiden’s Dream,” ii. 411; John Murray junior visits Cologne, Spa, Vesdre, etc., ii. 468; description of a stalactite cave at Spa, ii. 469. 1835—Trip to Schwalbach and Bonn: Mr. Nebel, ii. 363; the Schwein-General’s pig-whip, ii. 364; through his influence Anthony Trollope obtains a clerkship in the Post Office, ii. 384; letter from Samuel Warren on the injury caused to his professional prospects by the “Diary of a Late Physician,” ii. 386; Fanny Kemble’s “Journal in America,” ii. 400-402; letter from Lady Dacre with her opinion of the “Journal,” ii. 402; Mrs. Norton offers him “The Undying One,” ii. 412. 1836—Head’s letters from Canada, ii. 365-367; John Douglas Cook, ii. 384; Mrs. Norton’s poem, “A Voice from the Factories,” ii. 412, 413; correspondence with Lady Franklin, ii. 419; Hallam’s “Literary History of Europe,” ii. 434; Lord Mahon (afterwards Lord Stanhope), ii. 439; the first Handbook to the Continent (Holland, Belgium and North Germany), published, ii. 482. 1837—Letter to “Morning Chronicle,” on Napier’s “History of the Peninsular War,” ii. 284; Mrs. Lockhart’s death, ii. 382; letter from Mrs. Norton on John Kemble’s bitter attack on her, ii. 413, 414; correspondence with Sir Robert Peel, ii. 421; kindness to the Countess Guiccioli, ii. 422; at Cheltenham and Leamington, ii. 426. 1838—Transfers all his novels and romances to other publishers, ii. 428; William Scrape’s “Noble Art of Deerstalking,” ii. 431; Mr. Gladstone’s “Church and State,” ii. 436; F. Fowell Buxton’s “Slave Trade and its Remedy,” ii. 438; Handbook to Switzerland, ii. 483. MURRAY II. 1839—Mr. Gladstone’s “Church and State,” ii. 437; Miss Rigby’s (Lady Eastlake) “Letters from the Baltic,” ii. 441, 442; Sir Henry Havelock, ii. 444; illustrated edition of Lockhart’s “Spanish Ballads,” ii. 449; an alarming year—Factory districts in a blaze—Chartist Riots—Anti-Corn Law Agitation, ii. 452; Handbook to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, ii. 483. 1840—Milman’s “History of Christianity,” ii. 301; correspondence with Lord Mahon, ii. 440; Elphinstone’s “History of India,” ii. 443; Mrs. Jameson and her “Guide to the Picture Galleries of London,” ii. 445; Handbook to the East, ii. 483; George Borrow, ii. 484; Borrow’s “Gypsies of Spain,” ii. 485; Southey’s death, ii. 505. 1841—Dr. Robinson’s “Travels in Palestine,” ii. 426; Bishop of Llandaff and “Lord Dudley’s Letters,” ii. 443; J. M. junior’s travels abroad—his description of Angers and its cathedral and castle; of Saumur with its Druidical Remains, ii. 470; Fontevrault, the burial-place of Richard Coeur de Lion and Henry II.; Chinon, the residence of Henry II. and Richard I., ii. 471; Plessis de Tours, Cardinal Balue’s Prison, ii. 437; description of his trip to Spain and St. Sebastian fortress, ii. 473-475; J. M. junior’s travels abroad—Cauterets, Luz, Lac de Gaube; makes ascent of the Cirque de Gavarnie, ii. 476-478; correspondence with John Colquhoun on “The Moor and the Loch,” ii. 495; John Sterling’s poem, “The Election,” ii. 498; letter from Lockhart on the Copyright Question, ii. 499. 1842—Mrs. Norton’s friendly greeting to him in the Bijou Almanack, ii. 416; letters from George Borrow, ii. 486-490; “The Bible in Spain,” published, ii. 489; Horace Twiss’ “Life of Lord Eldon,” ii. 494; his illness, ii. 499. 1843—Richard Ford’s “Handbook of Spain,” ii. 490; Mr. Gladstone NAPOLEON. on the Copyright Bill, ii. 501; publishes many important books on Afghanistan, e.g.; Sir Alexander Burnes’ “Residence in Cabool,” Lieutenant Eyre’s “Military Operations in Cabool,” Lady Sale’s “Journal” (the last important work published by him), ii. 506; his failing health and death, ii. 507; tokens of respect from all parts—extracts from letters of sympathy from the Americans, Dr. Robinson and Mrs. L. H. Sigourney, ii. 520; his constant hospitality, his distinguished guests, ii. 423; his kindness to Count Cavour, ibid.; Theodore Hook frequently at his house, ii. 424; Jerdan’s account of the keen encounter of wits between Theodore Hook and Lord Robertson, ibid.; Hook’s extempore song on him, ii. 425; Tom Moore a frequent guest, ibid.; his dinner-parties an institution, ii. 426; in constant communication with Sir Robert Peel, many of whose speeches, etc., he published, ii. 446. Murray, III., John, a reader for the press at six years old, i. 340; recollections of Scott and Byron at Albemarle Street, i. 267; present at the destruction of Byron’s Memoirs, i. 443; letter from R. W. Hay on the anonymous attack on Gifford’s memory, ii. 177; lawsuit with Bohn, ii. 262; present at the Theatrical Fund Dinner in Edinburgh, when Scott declared himself the author of the Waverley Novels, ii. 279; extract from his article in “Murray’s Magazine” on the “Handbooks,” ii. 460; the originator and author of the “Guides,” ii. 463. Napier, Macvey, i. 194; ii. 355; opinion of the illustrated edition of Lockhart’s “Spanish Ballads,” ii. 450. Napier, Col. W., ii. 239; “History of the Peninsular War”—a prejudiced work, ii. 281; at Strathfieldsaye with Duke of Wellington, ii. 282; negotiations with Murray, ii. 282, 283. Napoleon Buonaparte, declares war against England, i. 35; escapes from NEBEL. Elba, i. 269; private correspondence with Crowned Heads, etc., of Europe declined by Murray, i. 279, 280. Nebel, Mr., ii. 362. Nelson, Lord, anecdote of, ii. 266. Newton (the Artist), ii. 256. Norton, Hon. Mrs., proposal to Murray about “The Maiden’s Dream,” and “The Undying One,” ii. 410; “A Voice from the Factories” accepted by Murray, ii. 411; John Kemble’s bitter attack on her, ii. 413; thanks Murray for new edition of “Don Juan,” ii. 414; her beatitudes, ii. 415; verses on friendly greeting Murray, ii. 416; “The Byron of Modern Poetesses,” ibid. Nugent’s “Memorials of Hampden,” ii. 237. O’Connor, Feargus, ii. 452. Oliver & Boyd, i. 495; ii. 187. O’Neil, Miss, ii. 50. Opie, Mrs., ii. 145. Orford, Lord, “Anecdotes of Painters,” i. 118; his “Memoirs,” ii. 88. Orloff, Count, ii. 345. Ouseley, Sir Gore, ii. 141; ii. 146. Owen, Robert, ii. 25; his “New View of Society,” ii. 26. Paget, Lieut. Henry (Murray’s Step-father), i. 29. Palgrave, Sir Francis (F. Cohen), i. 284; article in Q. R. on “Ancient and Modern Greenland,” ii. 46; “Astrology and Alchemy,” ii. 54, advice as to Q. R., ii. 161; Murray’s “Guide to Northern Italy,” ii. 483; on Murray’s friendship, ii. 519. Palk, Governor, i. 134. Palmer, Miss Alicia T., i. 180. Papineau, ii. 367. Paris, the Prussians and English in, i. 274. Paris, Dr., “Philosophy in Sport made Science in Earnest,” ii. 294; his anxiety not to be known as the author, ii. 386. Parish, H., ii. 483. Park, Adam, i. 278. Park, Mungo, “Travels in Africa,” i. 239; i. 240; i. 277. Parliamentary Reform, ii. 268. QUARTERLY. Parry, Capt. W. E., his “Voyages-Polar Explorations,” etc., ii. 99, 100; ii. 240. Paul, Emperor, proposal to assist Napoleon in turning English out of India, i. 279. Paulding, James K., “The Lay of a Scottish Fiddle,” ii. 131. Payne, H., ii. 133. Paxton, Dr. G. A., i. 27. Peel, Sir Robert, ii. 389; on Byron, ii. 422; publishes his speeches, etc.; grants pension to L. E. L., ii. 446; suggests a Guide round London, ii. 447. Penn’s house at Stoke, ii. 69. Perceval, Mr., assassination of, i. 202. Perry, James, “Independent Gazette,” i. 409. Petersham, Lord, i. 51. Phillips, Sir Richard, i.49; “Waverley” offered to, i. 243. Phillpotts, Rev. Dr. Henry (Bishop of Exeter), on “Lay Baptism,” i. 201; ii. 237. Pillans, Mr., i. 123; i. 162; i. 193. Pindar, Peter, ii. 293. Pitcairn’s “Criminal Trials of Scotland,” ii. 276. Planche, Mr., account of a dinner at Horace Twiss’ house, ii. 425. Playfair, Professor, i. 324. Plumptre, Miss, “Residence in Ireland,” ii. 44. Plutarch’s Lives—Langhorne’s translation, i. 8. Polidori, Dr., i. 386. Ponsonby, Miss, survivor of the Ladies of Llangollen, ii. 303. Porden, Miss Eleanor A., see Lady Franklin. Porter, Miss Jane, “Lord Ronald,” i. 342. Powles, J. D., ii. 186. Prevost, Mons., translator of Lyell’s “Principles of Geology,” ii. 390. Pringle, Thomas, Editor of “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 477. Procter, B. W. (Barry Cornwall), ii. 101. Proctor, John, ii. 34. Pusey, Philip, ii. 378. Quarantine Act, English, ii. 232. “Quarterly Review,” proposals by Murray to Canning, i. 93; to Scott, i. 198; RAMSAY. Gifford accepts Editorship, i. 99; letters from Scott; his advice to Gifford, i. 100-107; general arrangements, i. 107-124; launched, i. 139; first number appears, i. 143; first edition exhausted, i. 147; its unpunctual appearance, i. 157; i. 178; i. 180, 183, 188; Southey a constant contributor to, i. 189; ii. 39; Croker’s support, i. 201; its prosperity, i. 204; i. 235; i. 259; Hallam first contributes to, i. 285; 14,000 printed, ii. 39; difficulty in tracing authorship of articles, ii. 44; Sir J. Barrow’s connection with, ibid.; the “Bible of a faction,” ii. 82; Croker takes charge of it during Gifford’s illness, ii. 57; crisis—only two numbers in 1824; Gifford’s illness and resignation, ii. 155-162; J. T. Coleridge appointed Editor, ii. 164; Coleridge resigns, ii. 219; Lockhart appointed Editor, ii. 200-219; Sir F. Head a regular contributor, ii. 267; the years 1830-2 a time of great perplexity—Reform in the air—an unbiassed line of policy difficult, ii. 376; the Reform Bill detrimental to its circulation, ii. 377; holds its position as one of the higher organs of criticism, ii. 448. Ramsay & Co., George, i. 185. Regent, Prince, i. 212, 213. “Representative,” The, Murray’s daily newspaper; its projection, ii. 182 et seq.; first appearance and complete failure, ii. 208; ceases to exist, ii. 214, 215. “Revolutionary Plutarch,” i. 38. Rickman, John, ii. 230. Ridgways, ii. 78. Rigby, Miss (Lady Eastlake), “Letters from the Baltic,” ii. 441, 442. Riley, Capt. James, ii. 27, 28. Ritter, Prof. Carl, ii. 426. Roberts, Rev. Dr., i. 23. Roberts, Barri C., i. 151. Robertson, Lord (“Lord Peter”), meets with Theodore Hook at Murray’s dinner, ii. 424. Robertson, Dr. R., i. 26. Robinson, Dr., ii. 426; ii. 520. Robinson, H. Crabb, i. 266; ii. 40; ii. 246. Robinson, G. and J., i. 38. Roebuck, Dr., i. 256. SCOTT. Rogers, Samuel, on Q. R., i. 108; opinion of “Childe Harold,” i. 211; “Jacqueline,” i. 229-231; on Southey’s two inkstands, ii. 40; on Crabbe’s poems, ii. 71, 72. Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, ii. 268; ii. 316; Duke of Wellington’s action regarding, ii. 376. Romilly, Sir S., i. 399; ii. 322. Rose, William Stewart, “Letters from N. Italy,” ii. 29; invitation to Murray, ii. 69; “Orlando Furioso,” ii. 141; ii. 243. Ross, Sir James, his second Expedition to Baffin’s Bay, ii. 418. Rossetti, Gabriele, translation of “Divina Commedia,” ii. 242. Rothschild, Baron, ii. 467. Royal Society of Literature, i. 237. Roworth, printer of Q. R., ii. 201. Rundell, Mrs., “Domestic Cookery,” i. 90; i. 170; i. 185; i. 234; i. 251; history of the book and injunction obtained by Murray, ii. 120-125. Russell, Lord John, “Memoirs, Journals and Correspondence of T. Moore,” i. 441; “The Affairs of Europe,” ii. 145, 146. Russell, Lady William, i. 396; ii. 464. Russell, Lord William, ii. 464. Sabine, Captain, ii. 100. Salami, author of “Lord Exmouth’s Expedition to Algiers,” ii. 114. Sale, Lady, “Journal” in Afghanistan, ii. 506; Head’s and Lockhart’s opinion of the book, ii. 507. Sale, Sir Robert, ii. 506. Sandby, William, i. i; i. 4; i. 6. Savery, Mr. (Gifford’s and Cookesley’s friend), i. 135. Scott, Sir Walter, i. 59; “Sir Tristram,” and “Lay of the Last Minstrel,” i. 59; i. 85; “Marmion,” i. 76; Strutt’s “Queenhoo Hall,” and the “Sadler Papers,” i. 76; “Border Minstrelsy,” i. 84; partnership with Ballantyne, i. 85; “Life and Works of Dryden,” ibid.; articles for Q. R., i. 85; i. 94; proposed edition of “British Poets,” i. 85; proposed edition of “British Novelists,” i. 86-89; i 98; asks Southey to contribute to Edin. Rev., i. 94; severs his connection with Constable and Edin. Rev.; i. 95; visit from Murray SCOTT. i. 96; correspondence with Murray about Q. R., i. 98; letter to George Ellis on Murray, etc., i. 100; views as to management of Q. R., i. 103, 113, 115, 118; advice to Gifford, i. 104-107; friendship with George Ellis, i. 126; “Marmion Pocket Book,” i. 140; “Life of Swift,” i. 142; a principal contributor to first number of Q. R., i. 143; proposed “Secret History of the Court of James I.,” ibid.; “Portcullis Copies,” i. 144; “English Minstrelsy,” i. 170; Prince Regent’s opinion of his poems, etc., i. 213; “Rokeby,” i. 215; opinion of “Calamities of Authors,” i. 236; new edition of “Lord Somers’ Tracts,” ibid.; Ballantyne’s recklessness, i. 241; at Abbotsford, ibid.; fresh alliance with Constable, ibid.; his writing-desk; “Waverley” (Great Unknown), i. 243; “The Lord of the Isles,” i. 245; i. 258; additions to Abbotsford, i. 257; i. 468; “Don Roderick,” i. 258; opinion of Croker’s “Talavera,” i. 265; meets Byron at Murray’s house, i. 267; portrait by Newton, i. 271; trip to Belgium, i. 272; proposed letters from the Continent, i. 273; “Paul’s Letters,” i. 277; i. 286; “Antiquary,” i. 285; visit from Murray, i. 397; present with Murray at Coronation of George IV., i. 423; created Baronet, i. 424; bust by Chantrey, ibid.; opinion of “Cain,” i. 426; “Guy Mannering,” i. 453; poem, “The Field of Waterloo,” i. 454; admiration of Byron’s poems, i. 455; “Tales of my Landlord,” “The Black Dwarf,” i. 466; cicerone to George IV. in Edinburgh, i. 474; “Heart of Midlothian,” ii. I; ii. 7; serious illness, ii. 2, 3; assists Hogg, ii. 3; “Rob Roy,” ii. 7; visit from Washington Irving at Abbotsford, ii. 128; nicknamed “The Chevalier” by B. Disraeli, ii. 187; bankruptcy of his publishers, ii. 213; on Lockhart’s fitness for the Q. R. editorship, ii. 220; ii. 229; at Brighton with Lockhart; illness of his grandson “Littlejohn,” ii. 270; “History of Scotland,” ii. 271; Cadell appointed his publisher; purchases, jointly with Cadell, all principal copyrights of SHEFFIELD. his works, ii. 271; ii. 274; Murray’s transfer of his share of “Marmion,” ii. 275; last letter to Murray, ii. 276; rapid decline, ii. 277; death, ii. 278; account of his acknowledgment of the authorship of Waverley Novels at the Theatrical Fund dinner, ii. 279; opinion of “Murray, the Emperor of the West,” ii. 296; advises Lockhart to undertake “Life of Napoleon,” ibid.; opinion of Moore’s “Life of Byron,” ii. 315; some of the articles he wrote for Q. R.; Carr’s “Tour in Scotland,” i. 146; “Curse of Kehama,” i. 189; “Daemonology,” i. 241; Miss Austen’s “Emma,” i. 289; “Culloden Papers,” “Fair Isabel of Cothele,” i. 290; Campbell’s “Gertrude of Wyoming,” i. 330; “Childe Harold,” Canto III., i. 374; “Tales of my Grandfather,” i. 471; Hogg’s “Queen’s Wake,” ii. 5; “Lord Orford’s Letters,” ii. 11, 12; “The Suffolk Papers,” ii. 159; “Pepys’ Memoirs,” ii. 232; “Works of John Home,” “Planting Waste Lands,” “Plantation and Landscape Gardening,” Sir Humphry Davy’s “Salmonia,” ii. 266; “Hajji Baba,” “Ancient History of Scotland,” Southey’s “Life of John Bunyan,” Pitcairn’s “Criminal Trials of Scotland,” ii. 276. Scott, Thomas, i. 104; i. 461; reported to be author of “Tales of my Landlord,” i. 473. Scrope, G. Poulett, ii. 431. Scrope, William, “Extinct Volcanoes of France,” ii. 267; “Noble Art of Deerstalking,” ii. 431-433. Sedgwick, Professor, ii. 392. Senior, Nassau, ii. 54; ii. 60. Seward, Miss, “Life of Dr. Darwin,” i. 92; her opinion of Jeffrey, ibid. Sewell, Rev. W., his articles in Q. R. on Gladstone’s “Church and State,” ii. 437; and on Carlyle’s Works, ii. 455. Shadwell, Vice-Chancellor, on copyright of “Don Juan,” i. 407; on copyright of “Cain,” i. 428. Shaftesbury, Earl of, see Lord Ashley. Sharp, “Conversation,” i. 220. Sharpe, Charles K., i. 104. Shee, Martin Archer, P.R.A., i. 48. Sheffield, Lord, i. 227; i. 236; i. 232. SHEIL. Sheil’s “Evadne,” ii. 50; “Adelaide,” and “The Apostate,” i. 370; i. 384; ii. 29. Shelley, Mrs., opinion of Croker’s “Boswell’s Johnson,” ii. 290; on Murray’s proposal to purchase Shelley’s works, ii. 309; Murray’s loan to her, ibid.; “Lodore,” ii. 310; on Moore’s “Life of Byron,” ii. 318; asked by Murray for her notes on Byron’s career, ii. 328; appeals to Murray on her father’s (W. Godwin) behalf, ibid. Shelley’s “Revolt of Islam,” Southey’s attack on, i. 399. Shelley, Sir Thomas, ii. 309. Sigourney, Mrs. L. H., on Murray’s death, ii. 520. Sinclair, Sir John, “Code of Health and Longevity,” i. 66. Sismondi, i. 276. Smart, Theophilus, ii. 182. Smellie’s “Philosophy of Natural History,” i. 18. Smerdon, Rev. Thomas, Gi1ford’s Tutor, i. 130. Smith, Horace and James, “Rejected Addresses,” ii. 77. Smith, Sydney, “Visitation Sermon,” i. 184; on Hope’s “Anastasius,” ii. 75; Milman’s visit to him at Combe Florey, ii. 436. Smith, William, M.P., his attack on Southey in House of Commons, ii. 41. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, ii. 295. Somerville, Mrs., opinion of Moore’s “Life of Byron,” ii. 320; “The Mechanism of the Heavens” undertaken by Brougham’s advice, ii. 406; Phillips portrait; letters to Murray, ii. 408, 409; opinion of Rome and the Romans; work on Physical Geography, ii. 409; Molecular and Microscopic Science, ii. 410. Somerville, Dr., ii. 406, 407. Sotheby, Wm., called “Botherby” by Frere, ii. 24; translation of “Wieland’s Oberon,” ii. 243. Soult, Marshal, ii. 281. South America, speculation in connection with, ii. 252. Southey, Robert, i. 69; Jeffrey’s boast about his “Excursion,” i. 92; asked by Scott to write for Edin. Rev., 1. 95, opinion of Jeffrey, ibid.; asked SOUTHEY. to contribute to the Q. R., i. 104; i. 108; indictment of the Q. R., i. 168; “Life of Nelson,” i. 178; i. 238; “Madoc,” “Thalaba,” and “Curse of Kehama,” i. 188; constant contributor to Q. R., i. 189; i. 191; ii. 39; his income diminished by failure of “Edinburgh Annual Register,” i. 191; anger against Gifford, i. 198, 259; ii. 39; opinion of “Calamities of Authors,” i. 237; intention about his own Memoirs, ibid.; “History of Peninsular War,” i. 238; 239; ii. no; “History of Brazil,” i. 259; ii. 39; “The Tale of Paraguay,” i. 260; ii. 239; “Oliver Newman,” i. 260; portrait by Phillips, i. 272; asks Murray to employ Coleridge to translate Goethe’s “Faust,” i. 297; “Wat Tyler” ruled by Chancellor to be seditious, i. 384; Byron’s opinion of him, i. 399; “Letter to Mr. Smith,” ii. 41; a keen politician, ii. 42; extracts from his letters to Murray, ii. 108-112; “Life of Wesley,” ii. 110; “Book of the Church,” ii. 110; ii. 237, 238; literary work, ii. 112; advice as to Gifford’s successor, ii. 160; remarks on Lockhart’s appointment to Q. R. editorship, ii. 230; “Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” ii. 237; “History of Late War in Spain and Portugal,” “Sir Thomas More,” “Colloquies on Society,” ii. 239; remarks on Washington Irving’s “Columbus,” ii. 256; “Life of John Bunyan,” ii. 276; returned M.P. for Downton, ii. 387; his Q. R. articles his chief means of support, ibid.; extracts from letters to Murray, ii. 388; receives pension from Government, ii. 389; his intellect failing, ii. 502 et seq.; his death, ii. 505; had written ninety-four articles for Q. R., some of which are, “Missionary Enterprise,” “Life of Bruce, the Abyssinian Traveller,” i. 116; “Life of Nelson,” i. 177; “Faroe Islands,” i. 182; “French Revolution,” i. 202; “Life and Achievements of Lord Wellington,” i. 270; “Parliamentary Reform,” i. 306; ii. 40; “Poor Laws,” and “Evelyn’s Memoirs,” ii. 48; Hallam’s “Constitutional History,” ii. 263; “Thomas SOUTHEY. Telford, ii. 387; Barrow’s “Life of Lord Howe,” ii. 429. Southey, Mrs. (Southey’s second wife), on her husband’s state, ii. 502 et seq. Spanish Colonies, emancipation of, effect on English money market, ii. 185. Spence’s “Anecdotes of Books and Men,” ii. 53. Stael, Madame de, see De Stael. Stark’s “Picture of Edinburgh,” i. 66. Starke, Mrs., ii. 460. Stationers’ Co. in 18th cent., ii. 508. Sterling, John, “The Election,” Carlyle’s opinion of the poem, ii. 498; impressions of Lockhart, ibid.; opinion of Mill’s “Logic,” ii. 499. Sterling, Edward, ii. 498. Stewart, Professor Dugald, of Kinneil House, opinion of Byron, i. 255; Murray’s visit to, i. 256; “Philosophy of the Human Mind,” ibid. Stothard, Charles, ii. 83. Strahan, Dr., i. 195. Street, publisher of “Guardian,” ii. 113. Stuart of Dunearn, ii. 48. Stuart, Dr. Gilbert, “Discourse on Government and Laws of England,” i. 12; History of Reformation in Scotland, i. 24. Suard, Mons., i. 276. Suffolk, Countess of, “The Suffolk Papers,” ii. 91. Suliotes, the, i. 435. Sutton, Sir C. Manners, ii. 329. Taylor, Dr. Charles, ii. 122. Taylor, Henry, “Isaac Comnenus,” ii. 291; proposes to divide loss on his drama with Murray, ii. 291; “Philip van Artevelde,” ibid. Taylor, Thomas, of Denbury, i. 130. Talfourd, Serjeant, i. 200. Talleyrand, Memoirs of, i. 40. Teignmouth, Lord, i. 117. Tegg & Co., “Family Library,” transferred to, ii. 302; purchase Crabbe’s poems from Murray, ii. 385. Thackeray, W. M., his opinion of the “Suffolk Papers,” ii. 91. Thistlewood’s plot, ii. 52. Thomson, Professor, i. 155. Thomson, Dr. Thomas, article on Kidd’s “Outlines of Mineralogy,” i. 162. Thorne, James, ii. 447. TWISS. Thorwaldsen’s bust of Byron, i. 391; statue of Byron, ii. 330, 331. Ticknor, George, impressions of Gifford, i. 264, 265; dines with Marray, i. 270; opinion of Isaac D’Israeli, i. 271; description of guests at Sir R. Murchison’s dinner, ii. 449. Tita (Byron’s Gondolier), ii. 341. Tobin’s “Honeymoon,” i. 51; “Faro-Table,” i. 369. Tocqueville, de, ii. 423. Tomline, Bishop, “Life of William Pitt,” ii. 95. Tone, William Theobald Wolfe, ii. 26. Torrie, Mr., Murray’s companion during travels abroad, ii. 362; ii. 464; ii. 475. Townsend, Dr. George, ii. 237. “Trade Books” of 18th century, ii. 508. Trollope, Anthony, ii. 384. Trollope, Mrs., ii. 384. Tuckey, Capt., “Journal,” ii. 31; “Voyage to the Congo,” ii. 62. Turner, Alfred, ii. 80. Turner, Dawson, ii. 486. Turner, Sharon, i. 73; retained by Longman, i. 77; Murray’s staunch friend, ibid.; criticises Q. R. No. I, i. 146; article on “Character of Buonaparte,” i. 157; on “Austrian State Papers,” i. 158; opinion of Byron’s “Sketch from Private Life,” i. 363; copyright of Byron’s poems, i. 373; intimacy with Murray, i. 374; “History of the Anglo-Saxons,” “History of the Norman Conquest,” ibid.; copyright of “Don Juan,” i. 405-408; and “Cain,” i. 428; advice as to Medwin’s libel on Murray, ii. 449; poems declined by Murray, ii. 34; advice on Macirone’s libel suit, ii. 79; an injunction in the case of Mrs. Rundell’s “Domestic Cookery,” ii. 123, 124; consulted by Isaac D’Israeli as to pamphlet on quarrel with Murray, ii. 216; cautions Murray about Washington Irving’s “Columbus,” ii. 257; remarks on “Family Library,” ii. 297; expostulates with Murray about Milman’s “History of Jews,” ii. 298; expression of his affection for Murray, ii. 519. Turner, Mrs. Sharon, i. 73. Twiss, Horace, Planche’s account of TYNDALE. dinner at his house, ii. 425; “Life of the Earl of Eldon,” ii. 494. Tyndale, ii. 209. Tytler’s “History of Scotland,” ii. 276. Underwood, T. and G., i. 234. Van Zinglen, Baron, ii. 344. Vere, Lady, ii. 93. Volunteers, Review of, in Hyde Park—Murray an Ensign in 3rd Regiment of Royal London Volunteers, i. 36. Waldegrave Memoirs, ii. 88. Waldie, Miss Jane (Mrs. Eaton), “Letters from Italy,” i. 279; opinion of Byron, i. 405. Walker, C. E., “Wallace: a Historical Tragedy,” ii. 108. Walker, Josiah, i. 119. Walker, Patrick, “Lives of Cameron,” ii. 9. Walpole Memoirs, ii. 88. Walpole, Rev. R., i. 157. Walpole’s “Castle of Otranto,” i. 6. Walter, John, ii. 384. Warren, Samuel, “Diary of a Late Physician,” ii. 386; “Law Studies,” ii. 387. Watts, Alaric A., “Lyrics of the Heart,” ii. 243. Watts, W. H., ii. 205. Weber, Henry, Scott’s amanuensis, i. 145; “Tales of the East,” i. 172. Webster, Wedderburn, i. 371. Wedderburn, Brigadier-General, i. 7. Wedgwood, Josiah, i. 25. Wellington, Duke of, the Pont de Jena (Paris) incident, i. 274; witness in Macirone’s libel suit, ii. So; his first Ministry, ii. 268; interest in the Q. R., ii. 270; connection with Napier’s “History of Peninsular War,” ii. 282; “Despatches,” ii. 286; action with regard to the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, ii. 376. Westall, R., ii. 104. Wharncliffe, Lord, and Hobhouse’s breach of privilege, i. 410. YOUNG. Whishaw, John, i. 239; i. 277; i. 288. Whistlecraft, by J. H. Frere, i. 392, 394. Whitaker, Dr., ii. 48. Whitaker, Rev. John, i. 10; i. 17; “History of Manchester,” “Historical View of English Government,” i. 11. White, Rev. J. Blanco, i. 237; ii. 231. Wilkie, Sir David, his journey to the East; paints the Sultan at Constantinople, ii. 496; death off Gibraltar; Turner’s picture of his funeral at sea, ii. 497. Williams, Miss Helen Maria, i. 275; “Narrative of Events in France in 1815,” i. 280. Williams, Rev. J., “Life of Alexander the Great,” ii. 296. Willshire, William, ii. 28. Wilmot, Mrs., see Dacre, Lady. Wilson, John (Christopher North), “City of the Plague,” i. 343; connection with Blackwood’s Magazine, i. 344; article on “Childe Harold,” Canto IV., i. 398; a principal writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, i. 477; challenges anonymous author of “Hypocrisy Unveiled, etc.,” i. 488; “An Hour’s Tete-a-Tete with the Public” in “Blackwood’s Magazine,” i. 495. Windyer, senr., ii. 205. Wood, Lieut. John, ii. 443. Woodhouselee, Lord, “Elements of History,” i. 278. Wool, Rev. J., “Life of Joseph Wharton,” ii. 218. Wordsworth, William, ii. 245. Wortley, Lady Emmeline, ii. 416. Wright, Mr., his connection with the “Representative,” ii. 190; ii. 194; ii. 247. Wright, William, ii. 132. Young, Dr. Thomas, his theory of light, i. 92; writes for Q. R., i. 123; on “Insanity,” i. 161; on “Archimedes,” i. 176. LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.