The “Pope” of Holland House
Henry Hallam to John Whishaw, 28 April 1828
Rome, April 28, 1828.
My dear Whishaw,—Murray’s apologies would be more
satisfactory if I could reconcile them with the rest of his behaviour. But he has
not written to me, though he evidently told you that he would do so; and under all
the circumstances this is really an unparalleled neglect. Were it a mere matter of
business as to the publication of the octavo edition and the sale of the present, I might expect to
be consulted by my publisher; much more by a person who professes to value my
acquaintance, after what he admits himself, gives me a strong prima facie ground of complaint against him. I
am also much dissatisfied at the delay in printing the second edition. It was
commenced as early as last April; and Taylor had the whole
corrected copy in his hands before I left England in August. It is plain that
Murray must purposely have checked him. Pray do not give
yourself so much trouble about my affairs as to correct the proofs; this ought not
to be required if the printer is tolerably careful; and I shall arrive in England
in time, I hope, to put forth the edition early in the summer. What you tell me of
M.’s subjection to Lockhart had occurred to me, and is probably in great part true;
though I can hardly think he can have lost the power of remonstrance in such a case
as the present. This is like what sometimes happens in the management of private
property, a weak man employs a very cunning one, and ends by being in the power of
his own agent. Murray took Lockhart just
as you
| 319 |
![]() ![]() |
| 1828 |
![]()
would take your servant, though probably with
a worse character; it was one of his very silly speculations, and he expected
wonders from the support of Scott. I believe,
however, that the Review is declining, and such articles as Southey’s will not restore it. I shall
certainly (unless my friends in England advise the contrary) limit myself to a few
pages prefixed to the second edition. From some expressions of yours, I judge that
others as well as the Quarterly reviewers take exception to some of my opinions.
These, I presume, are almost entirely ecclesiastical objections, for I think real
Tory doctrines do not at all prevail among the laity. I have not the slightest
alarm about my ultimate success. The slow sale I attribute chiefly to the high
price, which was owing to Murray, and to the general
expectation that an octavo edition would be published. I had calculated that by far
the greater part of the quarto edition of my former work must be in private
libraries, and that the owners would wish to add the present in the same form, but
probably the book clubs had taken a larger proportion than I had supposed.
Guizot, I am told, is translating the whole
work with notes, which I hold no slight honour. I am also reviewed in a new
journal, La Revue Universelle, so
that I really have much more honour out of my country than in it. I am sorry for
Macaulay’s inability to finish his
critique, which would better
have fallen to Empson.
Nothing could give me more unexpected pleasure than the repeal
of the Test Act, chiefly as it most essentially affects the Catholic question. I
believe
| 320 |
![]() ![]() |
| From Hallam |
![]()
some of the bishops, &c., fancy
they shall now have a stronger support of the dissenters on that point; but it is
evident that the Houses see it differently. They are aristocratic assemblies, and
have always had a greater dislike, if not a greater jealousy, of the dissenters
than of the others.
I am, in somewhat a less degree, but still very much delighted
with the Manchester Bill.1 This House of Commons is really
an excellent one. I fear, however, that the present Cabinet will be as little able
to master the Tories in one House as the Whigs in another. This is, I expect, the
opening of a new era in our Constitution, and of such a collision between the
aristocratic and popular parties as has hitherto been prevented by the strength of
Government. A strong Government we neither have nor shall again see—at least,
unless more commanding talents should appear than seem to be producible at present.
The Corn Law is, on the other hand, a complete triumph of the aristocracy, and
makes Huskisson pass sub jugo.
Foreign affairs are, as you say, immensely embarrassing; but I
cannot blame Canning about Portugal.2 On the other hand, the present men, by giving way to
Miguel’s usurpation, have exchanged an
ancient ally
1 The Manchester Bill, 1828, was for transferring
from the borough of Penryn in Cornwall to the town of Manchester the right
of returning two members to Parliament. Under the auspices of Lord John Russell it passed through the
Commons, but was negatived without a division in the Lords on June 20,
1828. 2 In 1824 the King of
Portugal had applied to England for assistance. Canning was unwilling to send troops to
Lisbon, but thought a squadron might be sent to the Tagus; by this means he
frustrated the coup d’état
planned by Don Miguel, the son of the
Queen of Spain. |
![]()
| 321 |
![]() ![]() |
| 1828 |
![]()
for an interested enemy, and lowered the dignity of
Britain all over Europe. Perhaps they could have done nothing, which I own seems
rather a military question; for if we were strong enough, I really think we should
have been warranted in seizing the persons of Miguel and his
mother; and yet I am much for the law of nations, and did not like the Greek
treaty, as I have told you before. As it is we must not dream of interfering
against Russia. Perhaps the duty of her possessing Constantinople has been
overrated, as dangers from abroad usually are. Her Empire is already unwieldy, and
if a younger branch should reign in Turkey, as will probably be preferred, it may
not in the long run be injurious to the rest of Europe. At all events we cannot
prevent it without exciting a war that may be almost as long as the last.
Yours most truly,
George Canning (1770-1827)
Tory statesman; he was foreign minister (1807-1809) and prime minister (1827); a
supporter of Greek independence and Catholic emancipation.
William Empson (1791-1852)
Educated at Winchester and Trinity College, Cambridge, he succeeded Sir James Mackintosh
as professor of law at the East India College, Haileybury. He wrote for the
Edinburgh Review, of which he became editor in 1847.
François-Pierre-Guillaume Guizot (1787-1874)
French statesman and historian; he published
de la Révolution
d'Angleterre (1826-27) and
Histoire générale de la civilisation
en Europe (1828).
Henry Hallam (1777-1859)
English historian and contributor to the
Edinburgh Review, author
of
Introduction to the Literature of Europe, 4 vols (1837-39) and
other works. He was the father of Tennyson's Arthur Hallam.
William Huskisson (1770-1830)
English politician and ally of George Canning; privately educated, he was a Tory MP for
Morpeth (1796-1802), Liskeard (1804-07), Harwich (1807-12), Chichester (1812-23), and
Liverpool (1823-30). He died in railway accident.
King John VI of Portugal (1767-1826)
Son of King Peter III of Portugal; he was regent of Portugal from 1799, living in Brazil
during the Napoleonic occupation; he assumed the throne upon the death of his mother, Queen
Maria, in 1816.
John Gibson Lockhart (1794-1854)
Editor of the
Quarterly Review (1825-1853); son-in-law of Walter
Scott and author of the
Life of Scott 5 vols (1838).
Miguel I, King of Portugal (1802-1866)
The absolutist king of Portugal who reigned from 1828 to 1834; he spent the remainder of
his life living as an exile in Germany.
John Murray II (1778-1843)
The second John Murray began the
Quarterly Review in 1809 and
published works by Scott, Byron, Austen, Crabbe, and other literary notables.
John Russell, first earl Russell (1792-1878)
English statesman, son of John Russell sixth duke of Bedford (1766-1839); he was author
of
Essay on the English Constitution (1821) and
Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe (1824) and was Prime Minister (1865-66).
Robert Southey (1774-1843)
Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose
works, among them the
Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813),
History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and
The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).
John Whishaw (1764 c.-1840)
Barrister, educated at Trinity College, Cambridge; he was Secretary to the African
Association and biographer of Mungo Park. His correspondence was published as
The “Pope” of Holland House in 1906.
The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the
Quarterly was instigated by Walter
Scott as a Tory rival to the
Edinburgh Review. It was edited by
William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.
