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 ВЈ1,000, 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 ВЈ1,500 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 ВЈ300 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 ВЈ1
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 ВЈ300 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 (ВЈ300); 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 dГ©chirer_."

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 ВЈ400 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 ВЈ500. "I thank
you," he answered (December 6), "very sincerely for your magnificent
present; but ВЈ500 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."