The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Publisher and His Friends, by Samuel Smiles

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net


Title: A Publisher and His Friends
       Memoir and Correspondence of John Murray; With an
       Account of the Origin and Progress of the House, 1768-1843

Author: Samuel Smiles

Release Date: January 31, 2004 [EBook #10884]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A PUBLISHER AND HIS FRIENDS ***




Produced by Eric Hutton, Juliet Sutherland, Wilelmina Malliere and PG
Distributed Proofreaders





A PUBLISHER AND HIS FRIENDS

MEMOIR AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN MURRAY

WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF THE HOUSE, 1768-1843

BY THE LATE SAMUEL SMILES, LL.D.

CONDENSED AND EDITED BY THOMAS MACKAY

_WITH PORTRAITS_




1911



PREFACE


When my Grandfather's Memoirs were published, twenty years ago, they met
with a most favourable and gratifying reception at the hands of the
public. Interest was aroused by the struggle and success of a man who
had few advantages at the outset save his own shrewd sense and generous
nature, and who, moreover, was thrown on his own resources to fight the
battle of life when he was little more than a child.

The chief value of these volumes, however, consists in the fact that
they supply an important, if not an indispensable, chapter in the
literary history of England during the first half of the nineteenth
century. Byron and Scott, Lockhart, Croker, George Borrow, Hallam,
Canning, Gifford, Disraeli, Southey, Milman are but a few of the names
occurring in these pages, the whole list of which it would be tedious to
enumerate.

It may be admitted that a pious desire to do justice to the memory of
John Murray the Second--"the Anax of Publishers," as Byron called
him--led to the inclusion in the original volumes of some material of
minor importance which may now well be dispensed with.

I find, however, that the work is still so often quoted and referred to
that I have asked my friend Mr. Thomas Mackay to prepare a new edition
for the press. I am convinced that the way in which he has discharged
his task will commend itself to the reading public. He has condensed the
whole, has corrected errors, and has rewritten certain passages in a
more concise form.

I desire to acknowledge my debt to him for what he has done, and to
express a hope that the public may extend a fresh welcome to "an old
friend with a new face."

JOHN MURRAY.

_December_, 1910.




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--His writings--Mr. Kerr--Thomas Cumming goes to Ireland on
behalf of Murray--Prof. J. Millar--Mr. Whitaker--Defence of Sir R.
Gordon--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--Illness and death of the elder John
Murray

CHAPTER II

JOHN MURRAY (II.)--BEGINNING OF HIS PUBLISHING CAREER--ISAAC D'ISRAELI,
ETC.

John Murray the Second--"The Anax of Publishers"--His start in
business--Murray and Highley--Dissolution of the partnership--Colman's
"John Bull"--Mr. Joseph Hume--Archibald Constable--John Murray a
Volunteer--The D'Israeli family--Isaac D'Israeli's early
works--"Flim-Flams"--Birth of Benjamin D'Israeli--Projected periodical
the "Institute"--The "Miniature"--Murray's acquaintance with Canning and
Frere

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--Mr. Murray visits
Edinburgh--Engaged to Miss Elliot--Goes into Forfarshire--Rude
Hospitality--Murray's marriage--The D'Israelis

CHAPTER IV

"MARMION"--CONSTABLES AND BALLANTYNES--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 themes

CHAPTER V

ORIGIN OF THE "QUARTERLY REVIEW"

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 conditions--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

CHAPTER VI

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."--_Portcullis_
copies--"Old English Froissart"--Opinions of the _Quarterly_--Scott's
energy and encouragement--Murray's correspondence with Mr. Stratford
Canning--Murray's energy--Leigh Hunt--James Mill--Gifford's
unpunctuality--Appearance of the second number--Mr. Canning's
contributions--Appearance of No. 3--Letters from Mr. Ellis to Isaac
D'Israeli--John Barrow's first connection with the _Quarterly_--Robert
Southey--Appearance of No. 4

CHAPTER VII

CONSTABLE AND BALLANTYNE

Murray's and Ballantyne's joint enterprises--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 articles and books--Unpunctuality of the _Review_
--Gifford's review of "The Daughters of Isenberg"--His letter to
Miss Palmer--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

CHAPTER VIII

MURRAY AND GIFFORD--RUPTURE WITH CONSTABLE--PROSPERITY OF THE
"QUARTERLY"

Increasing friendship between Murray and Gifford--Gifford's opinion of
humorous articles--Mr. Pillans--Gifford's feeble health--Murray's
financial difficulties--Remonstrates with Constable--Correspondence with
and dissociation from Constable--_Quarterly Review_ No. 12--Gifford's
severe remarks on Charles Lamb--His remorse--_Quarterly Review_ No.
14--Murray's offer to Southey of 1,000 guineas for his poem

CHAPTER IX

LORD BYRON'S WORKS, 1811 TO 1814

Lord Byron's first acquaintance with Mr. Murray--Mr. Dallas's offer to
Cawthorn and Miller--Murray's 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--Publication of "The
Giaour," "Bride of Abydos" and "Corsair"--Correspondence with
Byron--"Ode to Napoleon"--"Lara" and "Jacqueline"

CHAPTER X

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--Scott's
embarrassments--Recklessness of the Ballantynes--Scott applies to Murray
for a loan--Publication of "Waverley"--Mystery of the authorship--Mr.
Murray's proposed trip to France--His letters to Mrs. Murray--Education
of his son--Announcement of Lord Byron's engagement--Mr. Murray's visit
to Newstead Abbey--Murray in Edinburgh--Mr. William Blackwood--Visit to
Abbotsford--Letter to Lord Byron--Letters from Blackwood--The "Vision of
Don Roderick"

CHAPTER XI

MURRAY'S DRAWING-ROOM--BYRON AND SCOTT--WORKS PUBLISHED IN 1815

Murray's drawing-room in Albemarle Street--A literary centre--George
Ticknor's account of it--Letter from Gifford--Death of his housekeeper
Nancy--First meeting of Byron and Scott--Recollections of John Murray
III.--Napoleon's escape from Elba--Waterloo--Mr. Blackwood's
letter--Suppression of an article written for the _Edinburgh_--Mr.
Murray's collection of portraits of authors--Mr. Scott's visit to
Brussels, Waterloo, etc.--Mr. Murray's visit to Paris--Return
home--Important diplomatic correspondence offered by Miss Waldie--Miss
Austen--"Emma"--Mr. Malthus's works--Letters from W. Scott

CHAPTER XII

VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS--CHARLES MATURIN--S.T. COLERIDGE--LEIGH HUNT

Charles Maturin--His early career--His early publications--And
application to W. Scott--Performance of "Bertram" at Drury
Lane--Published by Murray--"Manuel, a Tragedy"--Murray's letter to
Byron--Death of Maturin--S.T. Coleridge--Correspondence about his
translation of "Faust"--"Glycine," "Remorse," "Christabel," "Zapolya,"
and other works--Further correspondence--Leigh Hunt--Asked to contribute
to the _Quarterly_--"Story of Rimini"--Murray's letters to Byron and
Hunt--Negotiations between Murray and Leigh Hunt

CHAPTER XIII

THOMAS CAMPBELL--JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE--J.W. CROKER--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--Campbell's satisfaction with Murray's treatment of
him--"Now Barabbas was a publisher"--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--James Hogg--His works--And
letters to Murray--The "Repository"--Correspondence with Murray--Hogg
asks Murray to find a wife for him

CHAPTER XIV

LORD BYRON'S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY--_continued_

Lord Byron's marriage--Letters from Mr. Murray during the honeymoon--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--Murray's letter on the
arrival of the MS. of "Childe Harold," Canto III.

[Transcriber's Note: two pages missing from source document]

CHAPTER XIX

WORKS PUBLISHED IN 1817-18--CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.

Works published by Murray and Blackwood jointly--Illness of
Scott--Efforts to help the Ettrick Shepherd--Murray's offers of
assistance--Scott reviews the "Wake"--Hogg's house at Eltrive--Scott and
the _Quarterly_--"Rob Roy"--The "Scottish Regalia"--"The Heart of
Midlothian"--Appeal to Scott for an article--"Lord Orford's
Letters"--Murray and James Hogg at Abbotsford--Conclusion of Hogg's
correspondence--Robert Owen--Increased number of would-be poets--Sharon
Turner--Gifford's illness--Croker and Barrow edit _Quarterly Review_

CHAPTER XX

HALLAM--BASIL HALL.--CRABBE--HOPE--HORACE AND JAMES SMITH

Mr. Hallam--Sir H. Ellis's "Embassy to China"--Correspondence with Lady
Abercorn about new books--Proposed _Monthly Register_--Mr. Croker's
condemnation of the scheme--Crabbe's Works--Mr. Murray's offer--Mr.
Rogers's negotiations--Hope's "Anastasius"--"Rejected Addresses"
--Colonel Macirone's action against the _Quarterly_--Murray's
entertainments--Mrs. Bray's account of them

CHAPTER XXI

MEMOIRS OF LADY HERVEY AND HORACE
WALPOLE--BELZONI--MILMAN--SOUTHEY--MRS. RUNDELL, ETC.

Lady Hervey's Letters--Mr. Croker's letter about the editing of
them--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"--Giovanni Belzoni--His
early career and works--His sensitiveness--His death--Examples of his
strength--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, etc.--"The Book of the Church"--Warren
Hastings, etc--The Carbonari--Mr. Eastlake--Mrs. Graham--Galignani's
pirated edition of Byron--Mrs. Rundell's "Cookery Book"--Dispute with
Longman's--An injunction obtained

CHAPTER XXII

WASHINGTON IRVING--UGO FOSCOLO--LADY CAROLINE LAMB--"HAJJI BABA"--MRS.
MARKHAM'S HISTORIES

Washington Irving--His early dealings with Murray--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 ill-success in business
--"Bracebridge Hall"--James Fenimore Cooper--Ugo Foscolo--His
early career--First article in the _Quarterly_--Letter from Mr. T.
Mitchell--Foscolo's peculiarities--Digamma Cottage--His Lectures--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--Mrs. Markham's "History of England"--Allan Cunningham

CHAPTER XXIII

GIFFORD'S RETIREMENT FROM THE EDITORSHIP OF THE "QUARTERLY"--AND DEATH

Gifford's failing health--Difficulty of finding a successor--Barrow's
assistance--Gifford's letter to Mr. Canning--Irregularity of the
numbers--Southey's views as to the Editorship--Gifford's letter to Mr.
Canning--Appointment of Mr. J.T. Coleridge--Murray's announcement of the
appointment to Gifford--Close of Mr. Gifford's career--His
correspondence with Murray--Letter from Mr. R. Hay to the present Mr.
Murray about Gifford

CHAPTER XXIV

THE "REPRESENTATIVE"

Murray's desire to start a new periodical--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 negotiation-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--Engagement of Mr. Watts and Mr. S.C. Hall--Mr. Disraeli ceases to
take part in the undertaking--Publication of the _Representative_--Dr.
Maginn--Failure of the _Representative_--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

CHAPTER XXV

MR. LOCKHART AS EDITOR OF THE "QUARTERLY"--HALLAM WORDSWORTH--DEATH OF
CONSTABLE

The editorship of the _Quarterly_--Mr. Lockhart appointed--Letter from
Sir W. Scott, giving his opinion of Lockhart's abilities and
character--Letters from Mr. Lockhart--Mr. Croker's article on "Paroles
d'un Croyant"--Charles Butler--Blanco White--Controversies,
etc.--Wordsworth's Works--Letter from Mr. Lockhart--Renewed intercourse
between Murray and Constable

CHAPTER XXVI

SIR WALTER'S LAST YEARS

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 lawsuit with Bonn 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--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--Murray's
resignation of his one-fourth share of "Marmion"--Scott's last
contributions to the _Quarterly_--His death--Mr. John Murray's account
of the Theatrical Fund Dinner

CHAPTER XXVII

NAPIER'S "PENINSULAR WAR"--CROKER'S "BOSWELL"--"THE FAMILY LIBRARY" 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,
etc.--Publication of the book--Its value--Letter from Mrs. Shelley--Mr.
Henry Taylor's "Isaac Comnenus"--"Philip van Artevelde"--"The Family
Library" and the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge--The
progress of "The Family Library"--Milman's "History of the
Jews"--Controversy aroused by it--Opinion of the Jews

CHAPTER XXVIII

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--Lockhart and Scott's opinion of the
work--Publication of the first volume of Byron's "Life"--Mrs. Shelley's
letter--Publication of the second volume--Letters from Mrs. Somerville
and Croker--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"--Letters from Countess
Guiccioli and Sir R. Peel--Thorwaldsen's statue of Lord Byron--Refused
at Westminster Abbey, but erected in Trinity College Library, Cambridge




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.

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 Sheriffmuir. After
the rebellion 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.

John, the younger of Robert MacMurray'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.,
[Footnote: Sir George Yonge was Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, and
subsequently Secretary at War; he died in 1812.] a well-known official
of the last century, and his commission as second lieutenant was dated
June 24, 1762. Peace was signed at the treaty of Paris in 1763, and
young MacMurray found himself quartered at Chatham, where the monotony
of the life to a young man of an active and energetic temperament became
almost intolerable. He determined therefore to 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.

While residing at Chatham, MacMurray renewed his acquaintance with
William Falconer, the poet, and author of "The Shipwreck," who, like
himself, was a native of Edinburgh.

To this friend, who was then on the eve of sailing to India, he wrote:

BROMPTON, KENT, _October_ 16, 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, etc.; and I only
take his bound stock, and fixtures, at a fair appraisement, which will
not amount to much beyond L400, 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. It did not
delay his departure 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.

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 E. 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 nature of Mr. Murray's 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 felt the need of fresh
capital, and 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 L150, "lest he might be prejudiced for want of it," and added a
letter of kind and homely advice.

In order to extend his business to better advantage, Mr. Murray
endeavoured to form connections with booksellers in Scotland and
Ireland. In the first of these countries, as the sequel will show, the
firm established permanent and important alliances. To push the trade in
Ireland 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.

_Mr. T. Gumming 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, etc. 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."

Mr. Murray not only published the works of others, but became an author
himself. He wrote two letters in the _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." The
Colonel himself wrote (August 20,1774): "I cannot 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."

Up to this time Mr. Murray's success had been very moderate. He had
brought out some successful works; but money came in slowly, 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.

At this juncture, i.e. in 1771, an uncle died leaving a fortune of
L17,000, of which Mr. Murray was entitled to a fourth share. On the
strength of this, his friend Mr. Kerr advanced to him a further sum of
L500. The additional capital was put into the business, but even then
his prosperity 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. Murray wrote a pamphlet in his own defence, and the incident is
mentioned in the following 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 had considerable intercourse with the publishers of
Edinburgh, among the chief of whom were Messrs. Creech & 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 an appreciative patron of literature, and gave
large sums for the best books of the day.

Mr. Elliot, whose place of business was in the Parliament Close, and
whose daughter subsequently married Mr. Murray's son the subject of this
biography, was a publisher of medical and surgical works, and Mr. Murray
was his agent for the sale of these in London. 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 _Carran_,
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.

The first Mrs. Murray died, leaving her husband childless, and 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 Mends.
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. [Footnote: Long afterwards Chantrey
the sculptor, who had suffered a similar misfortune, exclaimed, "What!
are you too a brother Cyclops?" but, as the narrator of the story used
to add, Mr. Murray could see better with one eye than most people with
two.] 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."

The following extract from a letter to the Rev. Mr. Whitaker, dated
December 20, 1784, takes us back to an earlier age.

"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 the same year 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. Eraser'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.

The distressed state of trade and the consequent anxieties of conducting
his business hastened Mr. Murray's end. On November 6, 1793, Samuel
Highley, his principal assistant, wrote to a 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 he 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.




CHAPTER II

JOHN MURRAY (II.)--BEGINNING OF HIS PUBLISHING CAREER--ISAAC D'ISRAELI,
ETC.


John Murray the Second--the "Anax of Publishers," according to Lord
Byron--was born on November 27, 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 September 28, 1795, when he returned to 32,
Meet 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 & Highley,
between whom a partnership 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 & 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. 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 November 27, 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 STREET, _Friday, November 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.

Before the dissolution of partnership, Mr. Murray had seen the first
representation of Column'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 L300 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 pleasant letter, thanking Mr. Murray for his
liberal offer. The copyright, however, had been sold to the proprietor
of the theatre, and Mr. Murray was disappointed in this, his first
independent venture in business.

The times 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 & Highley,
as well as to collect the sums due to himself.

Mr. Joseph Hume, not yet the scrupulous financier which he grew to be,
among others, was not very prompt in settling his accounts; and Mr.
Murray wrote to him, on July 11, 1804:

"On the other side is a list of books (amount L92 8s. 6d.), containing
all those for which you did me the favour to 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.

Mr. Archibald Constable of Edinburgh, and Messrs. Bell & Bradfute, Mr.
Murray's agents in Edinburgh, were also communicated with as to the
settlement of their accounts with Murray & 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." It was the time of a patriotic volunteer
movement, and Mr. Murray was enrolled as an ensign in the 3rd Regiment
of Royal London Volunteers.

It cannot now be ascertained what was the origin of the acquaintance
between the D'Israeli and Murray families, but it was of old standing.
The first John Murray published the first volumes of Isaac D'Israeli's
"Curiosities of Literature" (1791), 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 Musaeus' '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 a yet older
generation, "to my father, who will be very glad to see you at Margate."

Besides the "Curiosities of Literature," and "Flim-Flams," the last a
volume not mentioned by Lord Beaconsfield in the "Life" of his father
prefixed to the 1865 edition of the "Curiosities of Literature," Mr.
D'Israeli published through Murray, in 1803, a small volume of
"Narrative Poems" in 4to. They consisted 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 reprinted.

The following letter is of especial interest, as fixing the date of an
event which has given rise to much discussion--the birth of Benjamin
Disraeli.

_Mr. Isaac D'Israeli to John Murray_.

_December_ 22, 1804. [Footnote: Mr. D'Israeli was living at this time in
King's Road (now 1, John Street), Bedford Row, in a corner house
overlooking Gray's Inn Gardens.]

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.

I. D'I.

Some extracts from their correspondence 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.

From a letter dated Brighton, August 5, 1805, from Mr. D'Israeli to John
Murray:

"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,' [Footnote: This was a work at
one time projected by Mr. Murray, but other more pressing literary
arrangements prevented the scheme being carried into effect.] 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 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 ... But Money, Money must not be spared in respect to rich,
beautiful, and interesting Engravings. On this I have something to
communicate. Encourage Dagley, [Footnote: The engraver of the
frontispiece of "Flim-Flams."] whose busts of Seneca and Scarron are
pleasingly executed; but 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 1,250
copies. I desire that no notice of the authors of that work may be known
from _your_ side.

       *       *       *       *       *

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 oL 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 [Footnote: Sir Richard
Phillips, bookseller. This is the publisher whose book on philosophy
George Borrow was set to translate into German, and who recommended him
to produce something in the style of "The Dairyman's Daughter"!] 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
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 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."


_Mr. D'Israeli to John 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."


_Mr. I. D'Israeli to John 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....

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....

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 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.

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. Kennell,
Master of the Temple, his friend and neighbour, who lived close at hand,
Murray became acquainted with the younger Kennell, Mr. Stratford
Canning, Gally Knight, the two sons of the Marquis Wellesley, 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 6,376 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 naive
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 and Frere, 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.




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, who was about four years older than Murray, 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.

In 1800 he commenced the _Farmer's Magazine_, and in the following year
acquired the property of the _Scots Magazine,_ a venerable repertory of
literary, historical, and antiquarian matter; 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 Forfarshire laird. 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. Shortly after the
partnership was dissolved in March 1803, Murray wrote as follows to Mr.
Constable:

_April_ 25, 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 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. 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 negotiations 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 to tell of the rupture
and to propose a closer alliance with him.

Mr. Murray replied:

_John Murray to Mr. A.G. Hunter.

December 7, 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."

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 promote a
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. Copies of the correspondence between
Constable and the Longmans were submitted to referees (Murray and
Davies), and the following was Mr. Murray's reply, addressed to Messrs.
Constable & Co.:

_John Murray to Messrs. Constable & Co_.

_December_ 14, 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 & 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 personal superiority, but what his own ingenuity
could not suggest, others could write for him.

I must apologise 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_ 24, 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
was not given, and 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.

Mr. Constable invited Murray to come to Edinburgh to renew their
personal friendship, the foundations of which had been laid during Mr.
Murray's visit to Edinburgh in the previous year; and now that their
union was likely to be much closer, he desired to repeat the visit. Mr.
Murray had another, and, so far as regarded his personal happiness, a
much more important object in view. This arose out of 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.

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 book-binders. He attended to the size and tone of the paper, and
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 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. It was 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 William Maule
(created Baron Panmure 1831). He was the second son of the eighth Earl
of Dalhousie, but on succeeding, through his grandmother, to the estates
of the Earls of Panmure, he 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.

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 March 6, 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 that the latter was 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"--CONSTABLES AND BALLANTYNES--THE "EDINBURGH REVIEW"


Mr. Murray was twenty-nine years old at the time of his marriage. That
he 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 27, 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 over 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 his part share in the publication of "Marmion" (in February
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_.

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

"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 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 1,000 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, 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 "undisputable rights to
one-half of the _Edinburgh 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.

Matters were brought to a crisis by the following letter, written by the
editor, Mr. Francis Jeffrey, to Messrs. Constable & Co.:

_June 1_, 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 L1,000 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.

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. Constable began to draw heavily upon Murray in
April 1807, and the promissory notes went on accumulating until they
constituted a mighty mass of paper money. Murray's banker cautioned him
against the practice. 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_.

_October 1, 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 L200 was due
yesterday, and I have been obliged to supply the means for paying it,
without any notice for preparation.... 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 debts of his own (including some of
Constable's) amounting to L1,073, which he has to pay in the following
week. From a cash account made out by Mr. Murray on October 3, it
appears that the bill transactions with Constable had become enormous;
they amounted to not less than L10,000.

The correspondence continued in the same strain, and 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 necessary to put an end to it peremptorily. 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 &
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, and Constable had
constant need to delay payments and renew bills.

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.

It was at this time that Scott committed the great error of his life.
His professional income was about L1,000 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 met
and rose superior to misfortune.

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.

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."

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.




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. 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.

In its early days the criticism was rude, and wanting in delicate
insight; for the most part too dictatorial, and often unfair. Thus
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." Ignorance also 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. Sir John Herschell, a more competent
authority, said of Young's discovery, that it was sufficient of itself
to have placed its author in the highest rank of scientific immortality.

The situation seemed to Mr. Murray to warrant the following letter:

_John Murray to the Right Hon. George Canning_.

_September 25, 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 must 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, but 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.

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. Scott
even endeavoured to enlist new contributors, for the purpose of
strengthening the _Review_. He wrote to Robert Southey in 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_.

_December, 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."
[Footnote: "The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey," iii. pp.
124-5.] Walter Scott, before long, was led to entertain the same opinion
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."
"Constable," writes Scott to his brother Thomas, in November 1808, "or
rather that Bear, his partner [Mr. Hunter], 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."

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 showed himself 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 _Edinburgh 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_ 26, 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.

Then, after a reference to the Novelists' Library mentioned in the last
chapter, the letter continues:

"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.... 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."

This letter was crossed in transit by the following:

_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.

ASHESTIEL, BY SELKIRK, _October_ 30, 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_ 2, 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."

Then, after a reference to the large circulation (9,000) and mischievous
politics of the _Edinburgh Review_, he proceeds:

"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_ 2, 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....

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 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 _outred_ 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 [Footnote: Given below, under date November 15, 1808.]
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 Gilford, the intended editor, was full of excellent
advice. It was dated "Edinburgh, October 25, 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 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 stupefying 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 mule 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_ 28, 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_ 15, 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 resources 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 [one on] 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 L200 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_ 15, 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' _expose_.
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 of
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.


_John Murray to Mr. Scott_.

_November_ 19, 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...."

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, and on December 1, 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.

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 Lilliputian 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, in reply to a request
for assistance, wrote:

"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_ 31, 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.

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

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 January 5, 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 _tete-a-tete_ 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_. _January_ 4, 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 also sent a note by the hand of Ballantyne to tell of his complete
rupture with Constable owing to "Mr. Hunter's extreme incivility."

As a result of these negotiations the Ballantynes were appointed
publishers of the new Review in Edinburgh, and, with a view to a more
central position, they took premises in South Hanover Street. Scott
wrote with reference to this:

_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.

_February_, 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_ 27, 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
unauthenticated books," if unintentional, seems little less than
prophetic.

_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.

Edinburgh, _February_ 25, 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 ero_,
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, etc., 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 [Footnote: Henry Weber,
Scott's amanuensis.] 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_ 28, 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 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. 1. He deplored the
appearance of the article by Scott on "Carr's Tour in Scotland."
[Footnote: 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."]

_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_ 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?"

An edition of 4,000 copies had been printed; this was soon exhausted,
and a second edition was called for.

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 1,000 or 1,500 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."

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 confederates continued to encourage each other and to incite to
greater effort the procrastinating Gifford. The following rather
mysterious paragraph occurs in a letter from Scott to Murray dated March
19, 1809.

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

In reply, Mr. Murray wrote on March 24 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_ 27, 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_ 4, 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.

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_ 12, 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.

The letter goes on to ask for information on foreign works of importance
or interest.

Mr. Stratford Canning replied:

"With regard to the comission 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_. 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, and 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."

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 harmonise 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. The second number
of the _Quarterly_ appeared behind its time, and the publisher felt
himself under the necessity of expostulating with the editor.

_John Murray to Mr. Gifford_.

_May_ 11, 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 he 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.

Mr. Gifford's reply was as follows:

"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."

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_ 18, 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,
etc., 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_ 'Aeschylus.' 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, expostulating, "Why, my
dear Sir, will you do these things?" thanked him warmly for his gift.

Mr. George Ellis was, as usual, ready with his criticism. Differing from
Gifford, he wrote:

"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."

Even Constable had 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; 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.

Of this article 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."

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,_ etc., 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."

His faithful correspondent, Mr. Ellis, wrote as to the quality of this
third number of the _Quarterly_. He agreed with Mr. Murray, that though
profound, it was "most notoriously and unequivocally _dull_.... We must
veto ponderous articles; they will simply sink us."

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." [Footnote: Mr. Murray was in Brighton at the time.]

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
continued to enlist a band of competent 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, etc. How Mr. Barrow was induced to become a
contributor is thus explained in his Autobiography. [Footnote:
"Autobiographical Memoir of Sir John Barrow," Murray, 1847.]

"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 to-morrow, 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.'"

Mr. Barrow modestly expressed a doubt as to his competence, but in the
sequel, he tells us, Mr. Canning carried his point, 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 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."

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 VII

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," a valuable property, which had
now reached 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 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 L1,000, and have engaged a
very large number of compositors for no other object."

On June 14, 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 L1,500 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 June 20:

"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, 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 Encyclopaedia,"
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_.

_October_ 31, 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."

Constable, with whom Murray had never entirely broken, had always 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,
and of the friction between them and Murray. Scott's "Lady of the Lake"
had been announced for publication. At the close of a letter to Murray,
Constable rather maliciously remarks:

_January_ 20, 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_ 26, 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 L300 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."

It contained one article which became the foundation of an English
classic, that of Southey on the "Life of Nelson." Of this article Murray
wrote to its author:

"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."

Mr. Murray, writing to Mr. Scott (August 28, 1810) as to the appearance
of the new number, which did not appear till a month and a half after it
was due, remarked on 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 L1
notes!" Gifford, instead of sending back the money with indignation, as
he at first proposed, 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."

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."

The following refers to a difference of opinion between Mr. Murray and
his editor. Mr. Gifford had resented some expression of his friend's as
savouring of intimidation.

_John Murray to Mr. Gifford_.

_September_ 25, 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 L300 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 July 25, 1810, he wrote to them: "This will be the last renewal of
the bill (L300); 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 8,000 of the "Domestic Cookery," which was
still having a large sale.

The Constables also were pressing him for renewals of bills. The
correspondence of this date is full of remonstrances from Murray against
the financial unpunctuality of his Edinburgh correspondents.

On March 21, 1811, he writes: "With regard to myself, I will engage in
no new work of any kind"; and again, on April 4, 1811:

Dear Constable,

You know how much I have distressed myself by entering heedlessly upon
too many engagements. You must not urge me to involve myself in renewed
difficulties.

To return to the _Quarterly_ No. 8. Owing to the repeated delay in
publication, the circulation fell off from 5,000 to 4,000, and Mr.
George Ellis had obviously reason when he wrote: "Hence I infer that
_punctuality_ is, in our present situation, our great and only
desideratum."

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. The
public eagerly read his prose, while his poetry remained unnoticed on
the shelves. The poet could not accept this view of his merits. Of the
"Curse of Kehama" he wrote:

"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 wrote a kindly notice of Southey's poem. It was not his way to 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 dechirer_."

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 L400 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 VIII

MURRAY AND GIFFORD--RUPTURE WITH CONSTABLE--PROSPERITY OF THE
"QUARTERLY"


A good understanding was now established between Mr. Murray and his
editor, and 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, and it is interesting
to remember that the writer of the following judicious criticism had
been editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ before he was editor of the
_Quarterly_.


_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.

_May_ 17, 1811.

"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 be 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.

The article did not appear in the _Quarterly_, and Mr. Pillans, the
writer, afterwards became a contributor to the _Edinburgh Review_.

In a letter of August 25, 1811, we find Gifford writing to a
correspondent: "Since the hour I was born I never enjoyed, as far as I
can recollect, what you call _health_ for a single day." In November,
after discussing in a letter 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 L500. "I thank
you," he answered (December 6), "very sincerely for your magnificent
present; but L500 is a vast sum. However, you know your own business."

Yet Mr. Murray was by no means abounding in wealth. There were always
those overdrawn bills from Edinburgh to be met, and Ballantyne and
Constable were both tugging at him for accommodation at the same time.

The business arrangements with Constable & 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. The following refers to
the purchase of Mr. Miller's stock and the removal of Mr. Murray's
business to Albemarle Street.

_John Murray to Mr. Constable_.

ALBEMARLE ST., _October_ 27, 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.
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 & Co. was as follows:

_John Murray to Constable & Co_.

_April 30_, 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 & Co. fired off a final shot on May 28 following, and the
correspondence and business between the firms then terminated.

No. 12 of the _Quarterly_ appeared in December 1811, and 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 his sister Mary was 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 [Footnote:
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."] the following letter:

_Mr. W. Gifford to Mr. Southey_.

_February_ 13, 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 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.

It is unnecessary to describe in detail the further progress of the
_Quarterly_. The venture was now fairly launched. Occasionally, when
some friction arose from the editorial pruning of Southey's articles, or
when Mr. Murray remonstrated with the exclusion or inclusion of some
particular article, Mr. Gifford became depressed, or complained, "This
business begins to get too heavy for me, and I must soon have done, I
fear." Such discouragement was only momentary. Gifford continued to edit
the _Review_ for many years, until and long after its complete success
had become assured.

The following extract, from a letter of Southey's to his friend Bedford,
describes very happily the position which Mr. Murray had now attained.

"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 IX

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 [Footnote: Robert Charles Dallas
(1754-1824). His sister married Captain George Anson Byron, and her
descendants now hold the title.] 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 & 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_ 30, 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, in his "Recollections of
the Life of Lord Byron," "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.'"

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_ 4, 1811.

MY LORD,

An absence of some days, passed in the country, has prevented me from
writing earlier, in answer to your obliging letters. [Footnote: These
letters are given in Moore's "Life and Letters of Lord Byron."] 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 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 (September 23, 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 October 1811 Lord Byron wrote from Newstead Abbey to his friend Mr.
Hodgson: [Footnote: 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.]

"'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 March 1, 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 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.

Eventually Mr. Murray consented to give Mr. Dallas L600 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.

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, and the following is Mr. Murray's
account of the conversation that took place.

_John Murray to Mr. Scott_.

_June_ 27, 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.

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 2_, 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.

This episode led to the opening of an agreeable correspondence between
Scott and Byron, and to a lasting friendship between the two poets.

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."

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_ 18, 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."

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_ 3, 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....
Gifford did what I never knew him do before--he repeated several
passages from memory."

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 April 29, 1814, he wrote to
Mr. Murray:

_Lord Byron to John Murray_.

_April_ 29, 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, etc.,

BYRON.

Mr. Murray was of course very much concerned at this decision, and
remonstrated. Three days later Lord Byron revoked his determination. To
Mr. Murray he wrote (May 1, 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."

The two poems were published anonymously in the following August (1814):
Murray allowed 500 guineas for the copyright of each.




CHAPTER X

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_ 1, 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 September 29th next." [Footnote: 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. 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.]

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, etc., for the sum of L3,822 12_s_. 6_d_.;
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.

Amongst the miscellaneous works which Mr. Murray published shortly after
his removal to Albemarle Street were William Sotheby's translation of
the "Georgies 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 L1,000.

In 1812 he published Sir John Malcolm's "Sketch of the Sikhs," and in
the following year Mr. Macdonald Kinneir's "Persia." Mr. D'Israeli's
"Calamities of Authors" appeared in 1812, and Murray forwarded copies of
the work to Scott and Southey.


_Mr. Scott to John Murray_.

_July_ 2,1812.

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 Lilliputian 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' [Footnote: Lord Somers' "Tracts," a new
edition in 12 volumes.] 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 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_ 14, 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. [Footnote: 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."]
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 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."

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, _July 5_, 1813.

I delayed answering your favour, thinking I could have overtaken the
"Daemonology" 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 L105. 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,
[Footnote: Three bills for L300 each at three, four, and six months
respectively.] 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
L6,000, 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_ 8, 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.

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,
[Footnote: Dr. Ferriar on "Apparitions."] 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 & Co., and published on half profits,
on July 7, 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"; 2nd, 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, appeared _the novel_. [Footnote: Indeed, in
Ballantyne & Co.'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.] 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 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
courant_ with the news of the day. In his letter of August 9 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 August 13 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 Stael has been
ordered to quit Paris, for writing lightly respecting the Bourbons." Two
days later he wrote to Mrs. Murray:


_August_ 15, 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 L200 in twelve months for 1,000
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.'"

Writing again on August 24, 1814, he says:

"Lord Byron set out for Newstead on Sunday. It is finally settled to be
his again, the proposed purchaser forfeiting L25,000. 'Lara' and
'Jacqueline' are nearly sold off, to the extent of 6,000, which leaves
me L130, 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."

On September 5, 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 minutiae 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...."


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.

On September 24 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, 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, L700 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
& Davies (the latter told me in confidence) and they refused."


At the beginning of October Mr. Murray set out for Edinburgh, journeying
by Nottingham for the purpose of visiting Newstead Abbey.

The following is Mr. Murray's account of his visit to Newstead. His
letter is dated Matlock, October 5, 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 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
L60,000. 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 L80,000--have
disappeared, and the whole place is crumbling into dust. No sum short of
L100,000 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 [Footnote: When the father of 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 L200 for it."] 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 I
regret that my romantic picture has been destroyed by the reality."


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 et
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.

Mr. Murray paid at this time another visit to 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_.

_November 8_, 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."


Although Murray failed to obtain an interest in "The Lady of the Lake,"
he was offered and accepted, at Scott's desire, a share in a new edition
of "Don Roderick."




CHAPTER XI

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 ordinary
visitors. It became for some time the centre of literary friendship and
intercommunication at the West End. In those days there was no Athenaeum
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, early in 1815, young George Ticknor, from Boston, in
America, then only twenty-three, met Moore, Campbell, D'Israeli,
Gifford, Humphry Davy, and others. 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, etc., so that I finished a long forenoon very pleasantly."
[Footnote: "Life, Letters, and Journal of George Ticknor," i. 48.]

The following letter and Ticknor's reference to Gifford only confirm the
testimony of all who knew him that in private life the redoubtable
editor and severe critic was an amiable and affectionate man.


_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_,

JAMES STREET, _October_ 20, 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
February 6, 1815, carefully waited on to the last by her affectionate
master. She was buried in South Audley Churchyard, 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." [Footnote: It will serve to connect the narrative with one of
the famous literary quarrels of the day, if we remind the reader that
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_.]

Murray's own description of his famous drawing-room may also be given,
from a letter to a relative:


"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 Stael, 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 April 7:


"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 greeted 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."

Mr. Murray's son--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."

Shortly before this first interview between Scott and Byron the news had
arrived that Bonaparte had escaped from Elba, and landed at Cannes on
March 1, 1815.

A few days before--indeed on the day the battle was fought--Blackwood
gave great praise to the new 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." [Footnote:
"Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor "(2nd ed.), i. p. 41.]

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!"

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, [Footnote: This portrait was not painted for
Mr. Murray, but was purchased by him.] 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, 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 (November 9, 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 for 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.

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. [Footnote: Afterwards
Mrs. Eaton, author of "Letters from Italy."] 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 Wurtemberg.

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 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 L10,000 for
the letters emanating from the Court of Russia alone. Thus the public
missed the perusal of an important series of international scandals.

In December 1815 Mr. Murray published "Emma" for Miss Jane Austen, and
so connected his name with another English classic. Miss Austen's first
novel had been "Northanger Abbey." It remained long in manuscript, and
eventually she had succeeded in selling it to a bookseller at Bath for
L10. 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, when she received no less than L150 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_ 29, 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."


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.

Mr. Murray also published the works of Mr. Malthus on "Rent," the "Corn
Laws," and the "Essay on Population." His pamphlet on Rent appeared in
March 1815.

Murray's correspondence with Scott continued. On December 25, 1815, he
wrote:


"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....

"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 tomorrow, 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.

".... 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."

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_ 19, 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.

_January_, 25, 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
make it shorter. There still wants eight or nine pages, which you will
receive by tomorrow's or next day's post; but I fancy you will be glad
to get on."

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.




CHAPTER XII

VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS--CHARLES MATURIN--S.T. COLERIDGE--LEIGH HUNT


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 L80, 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 L50 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 L1,000.

"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 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."

_John Murray to Lord Byron_.

_March_ 15, 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.... I have undertaken to print the tragedy at my own
expense, and to give the poor Author the whole of the profit."

In 1824 Maturin died, in Dublin, in extreme poverty.

The following correspondence introduces another great name in English
literature. 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 following is Mr. Coleridge's first letter to Murray:

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

JOSIAH WADE'S, Esq., 2, QUEEN'S SQUARE, BRISTOL. _[August_ 23, 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 Thoughts as affected and modified by
Passion and Emotion, I should spend days in avoiding what I deemed
faults, though with the full preknowledge 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 recent thing of Froth, Noise, and Impermanence, that may have
overbillowed it on the restless sea of curiosity, is the _true_ Prayer
of 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 most,
who think deepest and most imaginatively. The "Louisa" would delight
_all_ of good hearts.

I remain, dear Sir, With due respect, S.T. COLERIDGE.

To this letter Mr. Murray replied as follows:

_John Murray to Mr. Coleridge_.

_August_ 29, 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_ 31, 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. W. Scott, Mr.
Southey, Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sotheby, Sir G. Beaumont, etc.,
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," etc., would lay the blame on me; and
that he himself would suspect that if he had only lit on _another_
Translator then, etc. 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. 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 L200 by the non-payment, from
forgetfulness, and under various pretences, by "The Friend"; [Footnote:
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.] and for my poems I _did_ get
from L10 to L15. 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
Person) has no right to quarrel with _me_ for not getting into jail 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 Stael 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:

1. 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 both, 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 but a short way, or any German biographical work
of the Germans living, it would enable me to render the preliminary
Essay more entertaining.

Respectfully, 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 April 12, 1816, Coleridge gave the following lines to Mr. Murray,
written in his own hand: [Footnote: The "Song, by Glycine" was first
published in "Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," 1817, Part II., Act ii., Scene
I. It was set to music by W. Patten in 1836; and again, with the title
"May Song," in 1879, by B.H. Loehr.]

GLYCINE: 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, he 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!
  Today! today!"

In the following month (May 8, 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 L20 for
permission to publish the poem entitled "Kubla Khan."

Next month (June 6) Murray allowed Coleridge L50 for an edition of
"Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," which was then in MS.; and he also
advanced him another L50 for a play which was still to be written.
"Zapolya" was afterwards entrusted to another publisher (Rest Fenner),
and Coleridge repaid Murray L50. Apparently (see _letter_ of March 29,
1817) Murray very kindly forewent repayment of the second advance of
L50. There was, of course, no obligation to excuse a just debt, but the
three issues of "Christabel" had resulted in a net profit of a little
over L100 to the publisher.

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

HIGHGATE, _July_ 4, 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--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 opinions of an age, as
Petrarch, Ulrich von Hutten, etc. (here I will dare risk the charge of
self-conceit by 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 positively _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, dear Sir, 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_ 26, 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.
[Footnote: 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.] 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 truth mystical jargon of the _Examiner_ and
_Edinburgh Review_.

Mr. Randall will be so good as to repay you the L50, 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 favor. 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 L50 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 Renegadoism, which will appear this week.

Believe me, with respect, your obliged,

S.T. COLERIDGE.

The following letter completes Coleridge's correspondence with Murray on
this subject:

_Mr. Coleridge to John Murray_.

[Highgate], _March_ 29, 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 therefore written as
follows--"A mistake; I am still indebted to Mr. Murray L20 _legally_
(which I shall pay the moment it is in my power), and L30 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 on 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 Autography, 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 1,400 lines. Hunt then
proceeded (December 18, 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 L450 (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 L500, 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_.

_December_ 27, 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 L450. 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 today 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_.

_December_ 27, 1815.

"I have now read the MS. 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, etc., 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."

Leigh Hunt at once accepted the offer.

After the poem was printed and published, being pressed for money, he
wished to sell the copyright. After a recitation of his pecuniary
troubles, Hunt concluded a lengthy letter as follows:

"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 L450 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."

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_ 12, 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.

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.




CHAPTER XIII

THOMAS CAMPBELL--JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE--J.W. CROKER-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 Benedictine monastery of Scottish monks at
Ratisbon, a battle which was not, as has often been said, the Battle of
Hohenlinden. What he saw, however, made a deep impression on his mind,
and 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 "Lochiel'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 & Co.
had offered the young poet L700 for a new volume of his poems.

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_.

The projected magazine, however, dropped out of sight, and Campbell
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 5_, 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.
.... Our names are what Murray principally wants--_yours_ in
particular.... 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.... 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.

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. "I saw Campbell two
days ago," writes Murray to Constable, "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."

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. In January
1809 Campbell writes of his intention "to devote a year exclusively to
the 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. Campbell stopped occasionally in the midst of
his work to write poems, among others, his "Gertrude of Wyoming," 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 2_, 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 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.

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." This statement
must be received with considerable deduction, for, as the correspondence
shows, Campbell's pecuniary difficulties were by no means at an end.

It appears that besides the L1,000, which was double the sum originally
proposed to be paid to Campbell for the "Selections," Mr. Murray, in
October 1819, paid him L200 "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.

The great burden of the correspondence entailed by the _Quarterly
Review_ now fell on Mr. Murray, for Gifford had become physically
incapable of bearing it. Like the creaking gate that hangs long on its
hinges, Gifford continued to live, though painfully. He became gradually
better, and in October 1816 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."

Among the other works published by Mr. Murray in 1816 may be mentioned,
"The Last Reign of Napoleon," by Mr. John Cam Hobhouse, afterwards Lord
Broughton. Of this work the author wrote to Mr. Murray:

_January_, 1816.

"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 first edition, published without the author's name, 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,' _a la Hunt_." [Footnote:
Leigh Hunt had dedicated his "Rimini" to the noble poet, addressing him
as "My dear Byron."]

Mr. D'Israeli also was busy with his "Inquiry into the Literary and
Political Character of James the First." He wrote to his publisher as
follows: "I am sorry to say every one, to whom I have mentioned the
subject, revolts from it as a thing quite untenable, and cares nothing
about 'James.' This does not stop me from finishing."

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 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, John Murray the Third, 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 a 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 2_s_. _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 L1,400. 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."

The success of Scott's, and still more 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.

When 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 was more
guarded, as when reporting on a poem entitled "Woman," he wrote, "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 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."

James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, was another of Murray's
correspondents.

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, December 26, 1814, begins:

"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?"

To this and many similar enquiries Mr. Murray replied on April 10, 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.

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.

The next letter from the Shepherd thanks Murray for some "timeous" aid,
and asks a novel favour.

_May_ 7, 1815.

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 XIV

LORD BYRON'S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY--continued_


On January 2, 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_ 17, 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."

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,

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.

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 L1,500, 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_ 14, 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.

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 (January 3, 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."

The money, therefore, which Murray thought the copyright of the "Siege
of Corinth" and "Parisina" was worth, 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 (L600) 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, etc.,

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."

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.

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_ 23, 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 & Armstrong, in whose hands the
books now are, not to proceed further in the sale."

On December 28, 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 L450."

Mr. Murray sent Lord Byron a bill of L500 for the books as a temporary
accommodation. But the books were traced and attached by the sheriff. On
March 6, 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 tomorrow), 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_ 16, 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 March 22, paid to Crook & Armstrong
L231 15_s_., "being the amount of three levies, poundage, and expenses,"
and also L25 13_s_. 6_d_., the amount of Crook & Armstrong's account.
Crook & 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 5_s_. a day. The books were afterwards sold by Mr. Evans at his
house, 26, Pall Mall, on April 5, 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 L723 12_s_. 6_d_., 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 30,
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."

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_ 3, 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 17, 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.

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_ 12, 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 today. 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 I_
"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 [Footnote: He had left his wife at the church so as to bring
his poem to Murray.] all the morning and totally forgotten his little
engagement.

I saw Lord Holland today 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 9,000. Even Perry says the _Edinburgh, Review_ is going to the
devil. I was with Mrs. Leigh today, 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 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 1,500
guineas, and eventually L2,000 was fixed as the purchase price.

Mr. Murray wrote to Lord Byron on December 13, 1816, informing him that,
at a dinner at the Albion Tavern, he had sold to the assembled
booksellers 7,000 of his third canto of "Childe Harold" and 7,000 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 and "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."

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_ 10, 1817.

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 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 opportunity. No one can honour Lord
Byron a 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."

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 3, 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, etc., 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," Lord Byron 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 passage from a letter from
Scott to Murray:

"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."

Lady Byron also wrote to Mr. Murray:

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_ 5, 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."

This letter, to which no reply seems to have been sent, is followed by
another, in which her Ladyship says:

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.... 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.

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_ 20, 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 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. Helene d'une maniere
inconnue_. [Footnote: This work attracted a considerable amount of
attention in London, but still more 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. M. de Meneval, author of several books on
Napoleon's career, has left it on record that the "M.S. venu de Sainte
Helene" was written by M. Frederic Lullin de Chateauvieux, "genevois
deja connu dans le monde savant. Cet ecrivain a avoue, apres vingt cinq
ans de silence, qu'il avait compose l'ouvrage en 1816, qu'il avait porte
lui-meme a Londres, et l'avait mis a la poste, a l'adresse du Libraire
Murray."] 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.

_April_ 12, 1817.

Our friend Southey has got into a confounded scrape. Some twenty years
ago, when he knew no better and was a 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.

On July 15th and 20th Lord Byron wrote to Mr. Murray that the fourth
canto of "Childe Harold" 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 replied, offering 1,500 guineas for the
copyright.

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 on the subject of Thorwaldsen's bust of the poet:

"I shall conclude with telling you about Lord B.'s bust. It is a
masterpiece by Thorwaldsen [Footnote: 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."] 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."

The fourth canto duly reached London in Mr. Hobhouse's portmanteau, and
was published in the spring of 1818.




CHAPTER XV

LORD BYRON'S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY--_continued_--THE DEATH OF
ALLEGRA, ETC.


Lord Byron informed Mr. Murray, on October 12, 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.

Meanwhile the friendly correspondence between the poet and his publisher
continued:

_John Murray to Lord Byron_.

_September_ 22, 1818.

"I was much pleased to find, on my arrival from Edinburgh on Saturday
night, your letter of August 26. 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
[Footnote: The review of the fourth canto of "Childe Harold," _Q.R.,_
No.37.] 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 sent also 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.... 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."

The following letter is inserted here, as it does not appear in Moore's
"Biography":

_Lord Byron to John Murray_.

VENICE, _November_ 24, 1818,

DEAR. MR. MURRAY,

Mr. Hanson has been here a week, and went five days ago. He brought
nothing but his papers, some corn-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, [Footnote: Of "Childe
Harold."] etc., 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 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 [Footnote: Of "Childe Harold" in the
_Quarterly_ and _Blackwood._]--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.

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 [Footnote: St. 16, First Canto.] 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 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 3_, 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."

Mr. Douglas Kinnaird, who was entrusted with the business portion of
this transaction, wrote to Mr. Murray:

_Mr. Douglas Kinnaird to John Murray_.

_June 7_, 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 L525 for "Mazeppa," and
L1,575 for the first and second cantos of "Don Juan," with "The Ode to
Venice" thrown in.

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. A few criticisms
from Mr. Murray's private correspondence may be given.


_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.

RYDE, _July_ 1, 1819.

"Lord B.'s letter is shockingly amusing. [Footnote: Probably that
written in May; printed in the "Life."] He must be mad; but then there's
method in his madness. I dread, 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."

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_.

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_ 21, 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 L1,625. 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
[Footnote: In the case of "Wat Tyler," see Murray's letter to Byron in
preceding chapter, April 12, 1817.] 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. He admitted, however, that he had not had time to study it.

The next letter relates to the opinion of Mr. Shadwell, afterwards
Vice-Chancellor:

_Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray_.

_November_ 12, 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....

Yours most faithfully,

SHARON TURNER.

In the event the injunction to restrain the publication of "Don Juan" by
piratical publishers was granted.

Towards the end of 1819 Byron thought of returning to England. On
November 8 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:

" ... 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."

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 (January 1820), in which he reported
"Bad news from Ravenna--a great pity indeed," is 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.

During his imprisonment, Mr. Hobhouse was visited by Mr. Murray and Ugo
Foscolo, as well as by many of his political friends.

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.

Notwithstanding the 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 Clootz 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_ 26, 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."

The writer goes on to remark that the personalities in the poem are more
to be deprecated 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 gaiete
de coeur_, and which he would have omitted, advisedly and _de bonte de
coeur_, 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?... 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.... 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....

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 without your fobby O?"
[Footnote: The rest of the song is printed in _Murray's Magazine_, No. 3.]

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 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;
[Footnote:

"But when we at Cambridge were
My boy Hobbie O!
If my memory do not err,
You founded a Whig Clubbie O!"

]
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 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 sent 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."

After some revision, the first and second letters to Bowles were
published, and were well received.

The tragedy of "Sardanapalus," the last three acts of which had been
written in a fortnight, was despatched to Murray on May 30, 1821, and
was within a few weeks followed by "The Two Foscari: an Historical
Tragedy"--which had been composed within a month--and on September 10
by "Cain, a Mystery." 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 L2,710.

"Cain" was dedicated, by his consent, to Sir Walter Scott, who, in
writing to Mr. Murray, described it as "a very grand and tremendous
drama." On its first appearance 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 case came before Lord Chancellor Eldon on February 9. 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.

On the death of Allegra, his natural daughter, 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_ 20, 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_ 17, 1822.

Honored 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 her appears
on the walls of Harrow Church.




CHAPTER XVI

BYRON'S DEATH AND THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS MEMOIRS


No attempt has here been made to present a strictly chronological record
of Mr. Murray's life; we have sought only 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_ 25, 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, etc.; 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 Hatagee.
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, etc., etc.,

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 19, 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_ 8, 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 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_ 28, 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_ 10, 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. [Footnote: For Byron's reply to this letter, see Moore's
Memoirs, iii. 115.]

Moore received the continuation of Lord Byron's Memoirs on December 26,
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 2,000 guineas, on condition that he
should be the editor of the Memoirs, and write the Life of Lord Byron.

_John Murray to Lord Byron_. _July_ 24, 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 2,000
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 2,000 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." [Footnote:
Lord John Russell's "Memoirs, Journals, and Correspondence of Thomas
Moore," iii. p. 298.] 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, Hobhouse 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 2,000 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." Moore 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.

At the same time it must be remembered that Moore's interest in the
Memoirs had now entirely ceased, for in 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 took place in Murray's drawing-room, on May 17,
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
[1891]--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 became
necessary, but 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 2,000 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 _bond 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 2,000 guineas back." [Footnote:
"Memoir of the Rev. F. Hodgson," ii. 139-40.]

But the Byrons did not repay the money. Mr. Moore would not permit it.
He had borrowed the 2,000 guineas 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, considering 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. [Footnote: Lord J. Russell's " Memoirs,
etc., of Thomas Moore," iv. p. 188.]

_John Murray to Mr. R. Wilmot Horton_. ALBEMARLE STREET, _May_ 19, 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 & 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 2,000 guineas, which, on the execution of the
agreement by Mr. Moore, I 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, etc.

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 2,000 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 [Footnote: 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.] 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 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
injuring 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 2,000 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."_

Shortly after the burning of the Memoirs, Mr. Moore began to meditate
writing a Life of Lord Byron; "the Longmans looking earnestly and
anxiously to it as the great source of my means of repaying them their
money." [Footnote: Moore's Memoirs, iv. 253.] 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." [Footnote: Moore's
Memoirs, v. 51.]

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
2,000 guineas he had given for the burned Memoirs and L2,000 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.




CHAPTER XVII

SCOTT'S NOVELS--BLACKWOOD AND MURRAY


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.

Blackwood, 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 April 12
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, etc.; 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 everyone 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 L600 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 2,000 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 tomorrow, 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_ 27, 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 (May I, 1816),
congratulating him upon concluding the bargain through Blackwood, and
saying:

"I have taken the liberty of drawing upon you at twelve months for L300
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 October 1, 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 (June 6, 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_ 21, 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 & 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 L50 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 L1,400 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.
Constable is 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.; [Footnote:
Lockhart says, in his "Life of Scott," that "in Feb., 1816, when James
Ballantyne married, it is clearly proved, by letters in his handwriting,
that he owed to Scott more than L3,000 of personal debt."] 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 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 2_, 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."

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_ 23, 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 as, TALKS OF MY LANDLORD; _collected
and reported by Jedediah Cleishbotham, Pariah 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. [Footnote: This, the
original intention, was departed from.] 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."

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."

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 1,000
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 December 1,
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_ 13, 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 6,000.... 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_.

_December_ 14, 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 18, 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."

Mr. Murray seems to have accepted the suggestion and wrote in January
1817 to Mr. 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 serve 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:

_January_ 22, 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 (February 15, 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 6,000 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 XVIII

ALLIANCE WITH BLACKWOOD--BLACKWOOD'S "EDINBURGH MAGAZINE"--TERMINATION
OF PARTNERSHIP


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. When,
therefore, Mr. Blackwood started his magazine, Murray was ready to enter
into his plans, and before long announced to the public that he had
become joint proprietor and publisher of Blackwood's _Edinburgh
Magazine_.

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_, desired to keep the monopoly of the
Scottish monthly periodicals in his own hands, and 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. 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 unprecedented stir in
Edinburgh. It came out on October 1, 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." [Footnote: Mrs. Garden's "Memorials of James Hogg,"
p. 107.] 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."
[Footnote: _Blackwood's Magazine_, September 1882, pp. 368-9.]

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 Literaria," 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 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.

In August 1818, Murray paid L1,000 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.

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_. [Footnote: 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
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 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_.

_September_ 22, 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."

_September_ 25, 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 the title-page of the magazine, and he was jointly
responsible with Blackwood for the articles which appeared there.

In a long letter dated September 28, 1818, Mr. Murray deprecated the
personality of the articles in the magazine, and entreated that they be
kept out. If not, he begged that Blackwood would omit his name from the
title-page of the work.

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.

In October of this year was published an anonymous pamphlet, entitled
"Hypocrisy Unveiled," which raked up the whole of the joke contained in
the "Translation from an Ancient Chaldee Manuscript," published a year
before. 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_.

_October_ 27, 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....

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....

In answer to these remonstrances Blackwood begged him to dismiss the
matter from his mind, to preserve 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.

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."

Other criticisms of the same kind reached Mr. Murray's ear. Moore, in
his Diary (November 4, 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."
[Footnote: "Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence of Thomas Moore," ii.
210. By Lord John Russell.]

Finally the Hazlitt action was settled. Blackwood gave to Murray the
following account of the matter:

_December_ 16, 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." [Footnote: I have not been
able to discover what sum, if any, was paid to Hazlitt privately.]

Notwithstanding promises of amendment, Murray still complained of the
personalities, and of the way in which the magazine was edited. 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 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."

It seemed impossible to exercise any control over the editors, and
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.

On December 17, 1819, L1,000 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 Magazine_ finally ceased. He thereupon
transferred his agency for Scotland to Messrs. Oliver & 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 Tete-a-tete
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 7,000.... 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.




CHAPTER XIX

WORKS PUBLISHED IN 1817-18--CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--


Scott was now 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 (March
7, 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."

For some time he 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_ 28, 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 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 L50, which was granted. In acknowledging the receipt of
the money he wrote:

_Mr. James Hogg to John Murray_.

_August_ 11, 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.

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_. In response Scott contributed
articles on Kirkton's "History of the Church of Scotland," on Military
Bridges, and on Lord Orford's Memoirs.

Towards the end of the year, Mr. Murray paid a visit to Edinburgh on
business, and after seeing Mr. Blackwood, 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.

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_ 20, 1819.

MY DEAR SIR,

I arrived here the day before yesterday for my spring campaign in
literature, drinking whiskey, etc., 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 make its appearance this spring, and I think bids
fair to be popular....

Believe me, yours very faithfully,

JAMES HOGG.

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, _December_ 9, 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 & 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.

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 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_ 9, 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 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.

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, who bore the same name as his son. 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 number of persons who desired to publish poetry was surprising, even
Sharon Turner, Murray's solicitor, whose valuable historical works had
been published by the Longmans, wrote to him about the publication of
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_.

_November_ 17, 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 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."

During Gifford's now almost incessant attacks of illness, Mr. Croker
took charge of the _Quarterly Review_. The following letter embodies
some of his ideas as to editing:

_Mr. Croker to John Murray_.

BRIGHTON, _March_ 29, 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 [Footnote: "On the Poor Laws," by
Mr. Gleig.] 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. [Footnote: Probably
Blanco White.] 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 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 [Lord Stowell] 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_ 2, 1823.

"Croker has run away to Paris, and left poor Gifford helpless. What will
become of the _Quarterly?_ ... Poor Gifford told me yesterday that he
felt he _must_ give up the Editorship, and that the doctors had
_ordered_ him to do so."

Some months later, Barrow wrote to Murray saying that he had seen
Gifford that morning:

_Mr. Barrow to John Murray_.

_August_ 18, 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. [Footnote: This, so far as can be
ascertained, was a groundless assumption on Mr. Gifford's part.] I then
said, 'You are now 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_. They
received much assistance also from Mr. J.T. Coleridge, then a young
barrister. Mr. Coleridge, as will be noticed presently, became for a
time editor of the _Quarterly_. "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 XX

HALLAM BASIL HALL--CRABBE--HOPE--HORACE AND JAMES SMITH


In 1817 Mr. Murray published for Mr. Hallam his "View of the State of
Europe during the Middle Ages." The acquaintance thus formed led to a
close friendship, which lasted unbroken till Mr. Murray's death.

Mr. Murray published at this time a variety of books of travel. Some of
these were sent to the Marquess of Abercorn--amongst them Mr.
(afterwards Sir) Henry Ellis's "Proceedings of Lord Amherst's Embassy to
China," [Footnote: "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.] about which the
Marchioness, at her husband's request, wrote to the publisher as
follows:

_Marchioness of Abercorn to John Murray_,

_December_ 4, 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,' [Footnote: 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 (October 19, 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.] but is pleased with Macleod's [Footnote: "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 MacLeod, surgeon of the _Alceste_.]
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."

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.

And in reply to a request for more books to replace those condemned or
dull, he asks dryly:

"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 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 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, etc.

"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_,
[Footnote: 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 human
knowledge. To be printed uniformly with the QUARTERLY REVIEW. The price
by the year will be L2 2s."] and he set up in 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 received the
following candid reply:

_Mr. Croker to John Murray_.

_January_ 11, 1818.

MY DEAR MURRAY,

Our friend Sepping [Footnote: A naval surveyor.] 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 _beforehand_ 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 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 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_.

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 L3,000
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
(December 6) 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 L3,000 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 L1,000 for the new work and the copyright of the old poems--that
is, only one-third of what Murray had offered. [Footnote: "Memoirs,
Journals, Correspondence, of Thomas Moore," by Lord John Russell, ii.
237.]

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 L3,000, 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 (iii. 332),
says, "Even if the whole of the edition (3,000) were sold, Murray would
still be L1,900 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 2,426
copies, was handed over by Hatchard & Colburn to Mr. Murray, and nothing
more was heard of this controversy between them and the poet.

"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. When the author was announced to be Mr. Thomas Hope, of
Deepdene, some incredulity was expressed by the _literati_.

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.

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
purporting to be "Rejected Addresses, presented for competition at the
opening of Drury Lane Theatre." They offered the collection to Mr.
Murray for L20, 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 L131.

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
L10,000. Serjeant Copley (afterwards Lord Lyndhurst), then
Solicitor-General, and Mr. Gurney, were retained for Mr. Murray by his
legal adviser Mr. Sharon Turner.

The case came on, and on the Bench were seated the Duke of Wellington,
Lord Liverpool, and other leading statesmen, who had been subpoenaed 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. He substantiated the facts
stated in the _Quarterly_ article by passages quoted from 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. [Footnote: Given in Sir Theodore Martin's "Life of Lord
Lyudhurst," p. 170.] 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, May 22, 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."

The following description of a reception at Mr. Murray's is taken from
the "Autobiography" of Mrs. Bray, the novelist. She relates that in the
autumn of 1819 she made a visit to Mr. Murray, with her first 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 levee 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." [Footnote: "Mrs.
Bray's Autobiography," pp. 145-7.]




CHAPTER XXI

MEMOIRS OF LADY HERVEY AND HORACE WALPOLE--BELZONI--MILMAN--SOUTHEY
--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_ 22, 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 i