A Publisher and His Friends Part 10

"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 repet.i.tions 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, una.s.suming 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 a.s.sures 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 1,000, 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_ circ.u.mstance, upon which we reckoned, a sum of 1,500 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 d.a.m.nation 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 Ta.s.so, 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.