MR. LOCKHART AS EDITOR OF THE "QUARTERLY"--HALLAM--WORDSWORTH--DEATH OF
CONSTABLE
The appointment of a new editor naturally excited much interest among
the contributors and supporters of the _Quarterly Review_. Comments were
made, and drew from Scott the following letter:
_Sir Walter Scott to John Murray_.
ABBOTSFORD, _November_ 17, 1825.
My Dear Sir,
I was much surprised to-day to learn from Lockhart by letter that some
scruples were in circulation among some of the respectable among the
supporters of the _Quarterly Review_ concerning his capacity to
undertake that highly responsible task. In most cases I might not be
considered as a disinterested witness on behalf of so near a connection,
but in the present instance I have some claim to call myself so. The
plan (I need not remind you) of calling Lockhart to this distinguished
situation, far from being favoured by me, or in any respect advanced or
furthered by such interest as I might have urged, was not communicated
to me until it was formed; and as it involved the removal of my daughter
and of her husband, who has always loved and honoured me as a son, from
their native country and from my vicinity, my private wish and that of
all the members of my family was that such a change should not take
place. But the advantages proposed were so considerable, that it removed
all title on my part to state my own strong desire that he should remain
in Scotland. Now I do assure you that if in these circumstances I had
seen anything in Lockhart's habits, cast of mind, or mode of thinking or
composition which made him unfit for the duty he had to undertake, I
should have been the last man in the world to permit, without the
strongest expostulation not with him alone but with you, his exchanging
an easy and increasing income in his own country and amongst his own
friends for a larger income perhaps, but a highly responsible situation
in London. I considered this matter very attentively, and recalled to my
recollection all I had known of Mr. Lockhart both before and since his
connection with my family. I have no hesitation in saying that when he
was paying his addresses in my family I fairly stated to him that
however I might be pleased with his general talents and accomplishments,
with his family, which is highly respectable, and his views in life,
which I thought satisfactory, I did decidedly object to the use he and
others had made of their wit and satirical talent in _Blackwood's
Magazine_, which, though a work of considerable power, I thought too
personal to be in good taste or to be quite respectable. Mr. Lockhart
then pledged his word to me that he would withdraw from this species of
warfare, and I have every reason to believe that he has kept his word
with me. In particular I _know_ that he had not the least concern with
the _Beacon_ newspaper, though strongly urged by his young friends at
the Bar, and I also know that while he has sometimes contributed an
essay to _Blackwood_ on general literature, or politics, which can be
referred to if necessary, he has no connection whatever with the
satirical part of the work or with its general management, nor was he at
any time the Editor of the publication.
It seems extremely hard (though not perhaps to be wondered at) that the
follies of three--or four and twenty should be remembered against a man
of thirty, who has abstained during the interval from giving the least
cause of offence. There are few men of any rank in letters who have not
at some time or other been guilty of some abuse of their satirical
powers, and very few who have not seen reason to wish that they had
restrained their vein of pleasantry. Thinking over Lockhart's offences
with my own, and other men's whom either politics or literary
controversy has led into such effusions, I cannot help thinking that
five years' proscription ought to obtain a full immunity on their
account. There were none of them which could be ascribed to any worse
motive than a wicked wit, and many of the individuals against whom they
were directed were worthy of more severe chastisement. The blame was in
meddling with such men at all. Lockhart is reckoned an excellent
scholar, and Oxford has said so. He is born a gentleman, has always kept
the best society, and his personal character is without a shadow of
blame. In the most unfortunate affair of his life he did all that man
could do, and the unhappy tragedy was the result of the poor sufferer's
after-thought to get out of a scrape. [Footnote: This refers, without
doubt, to the unfortunate death of John Scott, the editor of the _London
Magazine_, in a duel with Lockhart's friend Christie, the result of a
quarrel in which Lockhart himself had been concerned.] Of his general
talents I will not presume to speak, but they are generally allowed to
be of the first order. This, however, I _will_ say, that I have known
the most able men of my time, and I never met any one who had such ready
command of his own mind, or possessed in a greater degree the power of
making his talents available upon the shortest notice, and upon any
subject. He is also remarkably docile and willing to receive advice or
admonition from the old and experienced. He is a fond husband and almost
a doating father, seeks no amusement out of his own family, and is not
only addicted to no bad habits, but averse to spending time in society
or the dissipations connected with it. Speaking upon my honour as a
gentleman and my credit as a man of letters, I do not know a person so
well qualified for the very difficult and responsible task he has
undertaken, and I think the distinct testimony of one who must know the
individual well ought to bear weight against all vague rumours, whether
arising from idle squibs he may have been guilty of when he came from
College--and I know none of these which indicate a bad heart in the
jester--or, as is much more likely, from those which have been rashly
and falsely ascribed to him.
Had any shadow of this want of confidence been expressed in the
beginning of the business I for one would have advised Lockhart to have
nothing to do with a concern for which his capacity was called in
question. But _now_ what can be done? A liberal offer, handsomely made,
has been accepted with the same confidence with which it was offered.
Lockhart has resigned his office in Edinburgh, given up his business,
taken a house in London, and has let, or is on the eve of letting, his
house here. The thing is so public, that about thirty of the most
respectable gentlemen in Edinburgh have proposed to me that a dinner
should be given in his honour. The ground is cut away behind him for a
retreat, nor can such a thing be proposed as matters now stand.
Upon what grounds or by whom Lockhart was first recommended to you I
have no right or wish to inquire, having no access whatsoever to the
negotiation, the result of which must be in every wise painful enough to
me. But as their advice must in addition to your own judgment have had
great weight with you, I conceive they will join with me in the
expectation that the other respectable friends of this important work
will not form any decision to Lockhart's prejudice till they shall see
how the business is conducted. By a different conduct they may do harm
to the Editor, Publisher, and the work itself, as far as the withdrawing
of their countenance must necessarily be prejudicial to its currency.
But if it shall prove that their suspicions prove unfounded, I am sure
it will give pain to them to have listened to them for a moment.
It has been my lot twice before now to stand forward to the best of my
power as the assistant of two individuals against whom a party run was
made. The one case was that of Wilson, to whom a thousand idle pranks
were imputed of a character very different and far more eccentric than
anything that ever attached to Lockhart. We carried him through upon the
fair principle that in the case of good morals and perfect talents for a
situation, where vice or crimes are not alleged, the follies of youth
should not obstruct the fair prospects of advanced manhood. God help us
all if some such modification of censure is not extended to us, since
most men have sown wild oats enough! Wilson was made a professor, as you
know, has one of the fullest classes in the University, lectures most
eloquently, and is much beloved by his pupils. The other was the case of
John Williams, now Rector of our new Academy here, who was opposed most
violently upon what on examination proved to be exaggerated rumours of
old Winchester stories. He got the situation chiefly, I think, by my
own standing firm and keeping others together. And the gentlemen who
opposed him most violently have repeatedly told me that I did the utmost
service to the Academy by bringing him in, for never was a man in such a
situation so eminently qualified for the task of education.
I only mention these things to show that it is not in my son-in-law's
affairs alone that I would endeavour to remove that sort of prejudice
which envy and party zeal are always ready to throw in the way of rising
talent. Those who are interested in the matter may be well assured that
with whatever prejudice they may receive Lockhart at first, all who have
candour enough to wait till he can afford them the means of judging will
be of opinion that they have got a person possibly as well situated for
the duties of such an office as any man that England could afford them.
I would rather have written a letter of this kind concerning any other
person than one connected with myself, but it is every word true, were
there neither son nor daughter in the case; but as such I leave it at
your discretion to show it, not generally, but to such friends and
patrons of the _Review_ as in your opinion have a title to know the
contents.
Believe me, dear Sir, Your most obedient Servant, WALTER SCOTT.
Mr. Lockhart himself addressed the two following letters to Mr. Murray:
_Mr. Lockhart to John Murray_.
Chiefswood, _November_ 19, 1825.
My Dear Sir, I am deeply indebted to Disraeli for the trouble he has
taken to come hither again at a time when he has so many matters of real
importance to attend to in London. The sort of stuff that certain grave
gentlemen have been mincing at, was of course thoroughly foreseen by Sir
W. Scott and by myself from the beginning of the business. Such
prejudices I cannot hope to overcome, except by doing well what has been
entrusted to me, and after all I should like to know what man could have
been put at the head of the _Quarterly Review_ at my time of life
without having the Doctors uttering doctorisms on the occasion. If you
but knew it, you yourself personally could in one moment overcome and
silence for ever the whole of these people. As for me, nobody has more
sincere respect for them in their own different walks of excellence than
myself; and if there be one thing that I may promise for myself, it is,
that age, experience, and eminence, shall never find fair reason to
accuse me of treating them with presumption. I am much more afraid of
falling into the opposite error. I have written at some length on these
matters to Mr. Croker, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Rose--and to no one else; nor
will I again put pen to paper, unless someone, having a right to put a
distinct question to me, does put it.
_Mr. Lockhart to John Murray_.
_Sunday_, CHIEFSWOOD, _November_ 27, 1825.
My Dear Murray,
I have read the letter I received yesterday evening with the greatest
interest, and closed it with the sincerest pleasure. I think we now
begin to understand each other, and if we do that I am sure _I_ have no
sort of apprehension as to the result of the whole business. But in
writing one must come to the point, therefore I proceed at once to your
topics in their order, and rely on it I shall speak as openly on every
one of them as I would _to my brother_.
Mr. Croker's behaviour has indeed distressed me, for I had always
considered him as one of those bad enemies who make excellent friends. I
had not the least idea that he had ever ceased to regard you personally
with friendship, even affection, until B.D. told me about his
trafficking with Knight; for as to the little hints you gave me when in
town, I set all that down to his aversion for the notion of your setting
up a paper, and thereby dethroning him from his invisible predominance
over the Tory daily press, and of course attached little importance to
it. I am now satisfied, more particularly after hearing how he behaved
himself in the interview with you, that there is some deeper feeling in
his mind. The correspondence that has been passing between him and me
may have been somewhat imprudently managed on my part. I may have
_committed_ myself to a certain extent in it in more ways than one. It
is needless to regret what cannot be undone; at all events, I perceive
that it is now over with us for the present. I do not, however, believe
but that he will continue to do what he has been used to do for the
_Review_; indeed, unless he makes the newspaper business his excuse, he
stands completely pledged to me to adhere to that.
But with reverence be it spoken, even this does not seem to me a matter
of very great moment. On the contrary, I believe that his papers in the
_Review_ have (with a few exceptions) done the work a great deal more
harm than good. I cannot express what I feel; but there was always the
bitterness of Gifford without his dignity, and the bigotry of Southey
without his _bonne-foi._ His scourging of such poor deer as Lady Morgan
was unworthy of a work of that rank. If we can get the same
_information_ elsewhere, no fear that we need equally regret the
secretary's quill. As it is, we must be contented to watch the course of
things and recollect the Roman's maxim, "quae casus obtullerint ad
sapientiam vertenda."
I an vexed not a little at Mr. Barrow's imprudence in mentioning my name
to Croker and to Rose as in connection with the paper; and for this
reason that I was most anxious to have produced at least one number of
the _Review_ ere that matter should have been at all suspected. As it
is, I hope you will still find means to make Barrow, Rose, and Croker
(at all events the two last) completely understand that you had, indeed,
wished me to edit the paper, but that I had declined that, and that
_then_ you had offered me the _Review_.
No matter what you say as to the firm belief I have expressed that the
paper _will_ answer, and the resolutions I have made to assist you by
writing political articles in it. It is of the highest importance that
in our anxiety about a new affair one should not lose sight of the old
and established one, and I _can_ believe that if the real state of the
case were known at the outset of my career in London, a considerable
feeling detrimental to the _Quarterly might_ be excited. We have enough
of adverse feelings to meet, without unnecessarily swelling their number
and aggravating their quality.
I beg you to have a serious conversation with Mr. Barrow on this head,
and in the course of it take care to make him thoroughly understand that
the prejudices or doubts he gave utterance to in regard to me were heard
of by me without surprise, and excited no sort of angry feeling
whatever. He could know nothing of me but from flying rumours, for the
nature of which _he_ could in no shape be answerable. As for poor Rose's
well-meant hints about my "identifying myself perhaps in the mind of
society with the scavengers of the press," "the folly of _your_ risking
your name on a _paper_," etc., etc., of course we shall equally
appreciate all this. Rose is a timid dandy, and a bit of a Whig to boot.
I shall make some explanation to him when I next have occasion to write
to him, but that sort of thing would come surely with a better grace
from you than from me. I have not a doubt that he will be a daily
scribbler in your paper ere it is a week old.
To all these people--Croker as well as the rest--John Murray is of much
more importance than they ever can be to him if he will only _believe_
what I _know_, viz. that his own name in _society_ stands miles above
any of theirs. Croker _cannot_ form the nucleus of a literary
association which you have any reason to dread. He is hated by the
higher Tories quite as sincerely as by the Whigs: besides, he has not
_now-a-days_ courage to strike an effective blow; he will not come
forward.
I come to pleasanter matters. Nothing, indeed, can be more handsome,
more generous than Mr. Coleridge's whole behaviour. I beg of you to
express to him the sense I have of the civility with which he has been
pleased to remember and allude to _me_, and assure him that I am most
grateful for the assistance he offers, and accept of it to any extent he
chooses.
In this way Mr. Lockhart succeeded to the control of what his friend
John Wilson called "a National Work"; and he justified the selection
which Mr. Murray had made of him as editor: not only maintaining and
enhancing the reputation of the _Review_, by securing the friendship of
the old contributors, but enlisting the assistance of many new ones. Sir
Walter Scott, though "working himself to pieces" to free himself from
debt, came to his help, and to the first number which Lockhart edited he
contributed an interesting article on "Pepys' Memoirs."
Lockhart's literary taste and discernment were of the highest order; and
he displayed a moderation and gentleness, even in his adverse
criticism, for which those who knew him but slightly, or by reputation
only, scarce gave him credit. There soon sprang up between him and his
publisher an intimacy and mutual confidence which lasted till Murray's
death; and Lockhart continued to edit the _Quarterly_ till his own death
in 1854. In truth there was need of mutual confidence between editor and
publisher, for they were called upon to deal with not a few persons
whose deep interest in the _Quarterly_ tempted them at times to assume a
somewhat dictatorial tone in their comments on and advice for the
management of the _Review_. When an article written by Croker, on
Lamennais' "Paroles d'un Croyant," [Footnote: The article by J.W.
Croker was afterwards published in No. 104 of the _Quarterly_.] was
under consideration, Lockhart wrote to the publisher:
_Mr. Lockhart to John Murray_.
_November 8_, 1826.
My Dear Murray,
It is always agreeable and often useful for us to hear what you think of
the articles in progress. Croker and I both differ from you as to the
general affair, for this reason simply, that Lamennais is to Paris what
Benson or Lonsdale is to London. His book has produced and is producing
a very great effect. Even religious people there applaud him, and they
are re-echoed here by old Jerdan, who pronounces that, be he right or
wrong, he has produced "a noble sacred poem." It is needful to caution
the English against the course of France by showing up the audacious
extent of her horrors, political, moral, and religious; and you know
what _was_ the result of our article on those vile tragedies, the
extracts of which were more likely to offend a family circle than
anything in the "Paroles d'un Croyant," and which even I was afraid of.
Mr. Croker, however, will modify and curtail the paper so as to get rid
of your specific objections. It had already been judged advisable to put
the last and only blasphemous extract in French in place of English.
Depend upon it, if we were to lower our scale so as to run no risk of
offending any good people's delicate feelings, we should soon lower
ourselves so as to rival "My Grandmother the British" in want of
interest to the world at large, and even (though they would not say so)
to the saints themselves.--_Verb. sap_.
Like most sagacious publishers, Murray was free from prejudice, and was
ready to publish for all parties and for men of opposite opinions. For
instance, he published Malthus's "Essay on Population," and Sadler's
contradiction of the theory. He published Byron's attack on Southey,
and Southey's two letters against Lord Byron. He published Nugent's
"Memorials of Hampden," and the _Quarterly Review's_ attack upon it.
Southey's "Book of the Church" evoked a huge number of works on the
Roman Catholic controversy, most of which were published by Mr. Murray.
Mr. Charles Butler followed with his "Book on the Roman Catholic
Church." And the Rev. Joseph Blanco White's "Practical and Internal
Evidence against Catholicism," with occasional strictures on Mr.
Butler's "Book on the Roman Catholic Church." Another answer to Mr.
Butler came from Dr. George Townsend, in his "Accusations of History
against the Church of Rome." Then followed the Divines, of whom there
were many: the Rev. Dr. Henry Phillpotts (then of Stanhope Rectory,
Durham, but afterwards Bishop of Exeter), in his "Letter to Charles
Butler on the Theological Parts of his Book on the Roman Catholic
Church"; the Rev. G.S. Faber's "Difficulties of Romanism"; and many
others.
While most authors are ready to take "cash down" for their manuscripts,
there are others who desire to be remunerated in proportion to the sale
of their works. This is especially the case with works of history or
biography, which are likely to have a permanent circulation. Hence, when
the judicious Mr. Hallam--who had sold the first three editions of
"Europe during the Middle Ages" to Mr. Murray for £1,400--had completed
his "Constitutional History of England," he made proposals which
resulted in Mr. Murray's agreeing to print and publish at his own cost
and risk the "Constitutional History of England," and pay to the author
two-thirds of the net profits. And these were the terms on which Mr.
Murray published all Mr. Hallam's subsequent works.
Mr. Wordsworth about this time desired to republish his Poems, and made
application with that object to Mr. Murray, who thereupon consulted
Lockhart.
_Mr. Lockhart to John Murray_. _July_ 9, 1826.
"In regard to Wordsworth I certainly cannot doubt that it must be
creditable to any publisher to publish the works _of_ one who is and
must continue to be a classic Poet of England. Your adventure with
Crabbe, however, ought to be a lesson of much caution. On the other
hand, again, W.'s poems _must_ become more popular, else why so many
editions in the course of the last few years. There have been _two_ of
the 'Excursion' alone, and I know that those have not satisfied the
public. Everything, I should humbly say, depends on the terms proposed
by the great Laker, whose vanity, be it whispered, is nearly as
remarkable as his genius."
The following is the letter in which Mr. Wordsworth made his formal
proposal to Mr. Murray to publish his collected poems:
_Mr. Wordsworth to John Murray_.
RYDAL MOUNT, NEAR AMBLESIDE
_December_ 4, 1826.
Dear Sir,
I have at last determined to go to the Press with my Poems as early as
possible. Twelve months ago the were to have been put into the hands of
Messrs. Robinson & Hurst, upon the terms of payment of a certain sum,
independent of expense on my part; but the failure of that house
prevented the thing going forward. Before I offer the publication to any
one but yourself, upon the different principle agreed on between you and
me, as you may recollect, viz.; the author to meet two-thirds of the
expenses and risk, and to share two-thirds of the profit, I think it
proper to renew that proposal to you. If you are not inclined to accept
it, I shall infer so from your silence; if such an arrangement suits
you, pray let me _immediately_ know; and all I have to request is, that
without loss of time, when I have informed you of the intended quantity
of letter-press, you will then let me know what my share of the expense
will amount to.
I am, dear Sir,
Your obedient servant,
WM. WORDSWORTH.
As Mr. Murray did not answer this letter promptly, Mr. H. Crabb Robinson
called upon him to receive his decision, and subsequently wrote:
_Mr. H.G. Robinson to John Murray_.
_February_ 1827.
"I wrote to Mr. Wordsworth the day after I had the pleasure of seeing
you. I am sorry to say that my letter came too late. Mr. Wordsworth
interpreted your silence into a rejection of his offer; and his works
will unfortunately lose the benefit of appearing under you auspices.
They have been under the press some weeks."
For about fifteen years there had been no business transactions between
Murray and Constable. On the eve of the failure of the Constables, the
head of the firm, Mr. Archibald Constable (October 1825), was paying a
visit at Wimbledon, when Mr. Murray addressed his host--Mr. Wright,
whose name has already occurred in the _Representative_
correspondence--as follows:
My Dear Wright,
Although I intend to do myself the pleasure of calling upon Mr.
Constable at your house tomorrow immediately after church (for it is our
charity sermon at Wimbledon, and I must attend), yet I should be most
happy, if it were agreeable to you and to him, to favour us with your
company at dinner at, I will say, five tomorrow. Mr. Constable is
godfather to my son, who will be at home, and I am anxious to introduce
him to Mr. C., who may not be long in town.
Mr. Constable and his friend accordingly dined with Murray, and that the
meeting was very pleasant may be inferred from Mr. Constable's letter of
a few days later, in which he wrote to Murray, "It made my heart glad to
be once more happy together as we were the other evening." The rest of
Mr. Constable's letter referred to Hume's Philosophical Writings, which
were tendered to Murray, but which he declined to publish.
Constable died two years later, John Ballantyne, Scott's partner, a few
years earlier; and Scott entered in his diary, "It is written that
nothing shall flourish under my shadow."