without any notice of the time that it had been already detained, you tell me that it will be convenient for you to retain it for a month, unless I wish you to remit it to me.' That Mr. Murray continued: This behaviour, Mr. Constable, after a week's consideration, does not appear to me to be reconcileable either with friendship or business,' is not to be wondered at. The relations between the two firms became strained. Their quarrels and reconciliations grew frequent. But the upshot was that in 1808 the Messrs. Constable opened a house in Ludgate Street for the sale of the Edinburgh Review and the other works in which they were concerned, and that in 1813, Mr. Murray at last peremptorily refused to have anything more to do with their bills, and so escaped the vortex in which they themselves were finally overwhelmed.

Mr. Murray's connection with the Messrs. Constable had naturally brought him into relation with the Ballantynes, and from 1806 he was in frequent and intimate intercourse with James Ballantyne, who had printed for him Hogg's Ettrick Shepherd and other works. Subsequently, when the Ballantynes were fairly launched upon their disastrous career, they endeavoured to induce him to join them in some of their enterprises, but with only the most partial success. This it probably was that led Sir Walter Scott to adopt Byron's words, and call him in his 'Journal'* 'the most timorous of all God's booksellers. But whether or not, he appears to have been extremely unwilling to embark in any of their schemes. Apparently he feared the cost, but it may be that he was aware of Ballantynes' connection with the Messrs. Constable, and was afraid of getting further mixed up in their peculiar mode of doing business. His connection with the Messrs. Constable, how

* Vol. i., p. 21.

+ Referring to this Lockhart says: Owing to the habitual irregularities of John Ballantyne, it had been adopted as the regular plan between that person and Constable, that, whenever the latter signed a bill for the purpose of the other's raising money among the bankers, there should, in case of his neglecting to take that bill up before it fell due, be deposited a counter-bill, signed by Ballantyne, on which Constable might, if need were, raise a sum equivalent to that for which he had pledged his credit.

6

ever, was not wholly unprofitable. For one thing, it had brought his name into prominence, and for another, it had given him a share in Marmion,' a share which he afterwards generously surrendered when the crash had come, and Sir Walter was heroically struggling to wipe out the enormous debts in which his connections with Constable and the Ballantynes had involved him.

The London agency for the publication of the Edinburgh Review did not pass from Mr. Murray's hands, as we have seen, till towards the end of 1808. He had, however, for some time previous to this been dissatisfied both with the politics of the Review and with the tone of some of its literary articles. The Edinburgh, as is well known, was set up in 1802 in the Whig interest, and Mr. Murray was a Tory. Scott also was a Tory, but took great interest in the Review, and in its earliest days frequently contributed to its pages. As late as May, 1807, he had even written to Southey, endeavouring to enlist his services for the purpose of strengthening the Review. But Jeffrey's severe and unjust review of 'Marmion,' which appeared in 1808, in which he accused Scott of a mercenary spirit in writing for money (though, as Dr. Smiles observes, he was himself writing for money in the same article) and asserted that he had neglected Scottish feelings and Scottish characters, considerably cooled his interest in it, and when Jeffrey's article on Don Cevallos on the Occupation of Spain appeared later on in the same year, he wrote to Constable declining to subscribe to it any longer. Like Murray, he had for some time been dissatisfied with it, and had supported it. latterly more from patriotic motives than from personal liking. Murray, however, had already conceived the idea of starting a

The plan went on under James's management, just as John had begun it. Under his management also, such was the incredible looseness of it, the counter-bills, meant only for being sent into the market in the event of the primary bills being threatened with dishonour-these instruments of safeguard for Constable against contingent danger were allowed to lie unenquired about in Constable's desk, until they had swelled into a truly monstrous "sheaf of stamps."—Life of Sir W. S., Vol. vi., 116, edition 1837.

periodical in opposition to the Edinburgh. In September, 1807, he had written to Canning, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, calling his attention to the character of the Edinburgh, and soliciting his patronage for his plan of setting up a rival to it. He fully appreciated the ability with which the Edinburgh was conducted; but was willing to risk close on a thousand pounds a year in order to counteract what he conceived to be its mischievous tendency. To the letter addressed to him on the subject, Canning seems to have sent no written reply, probably for the reason that the project was meant to embrace the discussion of political questions, and that by means of these discussions he might, if the thing went on, be embarrassed. But shortly after the letter had been received, Murray received a communication from him through Mr. Stratford Canning, whose acquaintance he had already made through the publication of the Miniature, and who, at the instance of Canning, introduced to him Gifford as a suitable editor. This was in January, 1808, and the three, Stratford Canning, Murray, and Gifford, then began to hold many and long consultations together. It was some time, however, before any practical steps could be taken towards the carrying out of the project.

But the support of George Canning having been obtained, though from his position of Minister for Foreign Affairs he was compelled to keep in the background, and an editor having been fixed upon, Murray next resolved to set himself to secure the co-operation of Sir Walter Scott. The publication of Jeffrey's ungenerous article on 'Marmion' afforded the opportunity. He resolved to consult Ballantyne, with whom he was ready to place a considerable amount of printing, and arranged to meet him at Boroughbridge in Yorkshire. The information he then received induced him to push further northwards, and when the number of the Edinburgh containing the Don Cevallos article arrived at Ashestiel, he was present. Scott entered into the project with zeal, promised his hearty co-operation, and subsequently wrote several long letters of advice both to Murray and Gifford, as well as others to his brother, Thomas Scott, Kirkpatrick Sharpe, then at Christ's

Church, Oxford, Mr. Morritt of Rokeby Park, Yorkshire, and to Southey. Support was also promised in other quarters, among others by Mr. George Ellis, the friend of Scott and the political confidant of Mr. Murray, but better known as the author of the Early English Metrical Romances, Lord Hawkesbury, Hookham Frere, Mr. Long, Rogers and Moore, James Mill, Mr. Pillans, then a master at Eton and afterwards Rector of the Edinburgh High School, Dr. Young, whom Brougham had savagely cut up in the Edinburgh, and J. Wilson Croker.

The preparations for the first number were conducted with the greatest secrecy, though not without some rumours of them reaching the Messrs. Constable in Edinburgh, who tried to heal the breach already existing between them and Scott. Canning and Gifford retired in the end of November, 1808, to Mr. Ellis's house at Sunninghill, and there concocted the article on Spain. Southey was busy with his article on Missionaries; Turner was preparing his Sanskrit article, and Dr. Young was engaged on Laplace. The Ballantynes were appointed the Edinburgh publishers, and in the end of February, 1809, the first number of the Quarterly Review appeared. The principal contributor to it was Scott, from whose pen it contained three articles, those, namely, on the Reliques of Burns, the Chronicles of the Cid, and Sir John Carr's Tour through Scotland. Like most first numbers,' says Dr. Smiles, 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.' Scott was not entirely satisfied with it, and saw evident signs of haste in most of the articles. Ellis, who long continued to play the part of 'candid friend' to the Review, said of it: Upon the whole, I am at least tolerably satisfied.' Sharon Turner, on the other hand, deplored the appearance of Scott's article on Carr's Tour through Scotland.' The sale was good. Four thousand copies were at first printed. They were soon exhausted, and a second edition was called for. The Ballan

tynes took 850 copies, and Scott expected for the second number a firm and stable sale' in Scotland of 1000 or 1500, and expressed himself satisfied with his payment of ten guineas a sheet.

Number 2 had several new contributors, and was considered superior to its predecessor. Even Constable had a good word to say for it; but it had the fault of appearing at the end of May instead of in the middle of April. Number 3 also was late. The fourth number, which contained Grant's article on the Character of the late C. J. Fox,' an article which, according to Mr. Murray, excited general admiration, instead of coming out in November, did not appear till the end of December 1809. The fifth, with Southey's 'Life of Nelson,' was also unpunctual, as likewise were numbers 9 and 10. The circulation of number 8 fell from 5000 to 4000. The fact would seem to be that, at the beginning of its existence, the Quarterly was in a very precarious condition, and for many numbers did not pay its expenses. This was due in a large measure to its unpunctuality. In this respect it was a singular contrast to its rival. The Edinburgh was always up to date, while the Quarterly was always behind. Contrasting the two, Mr. Erskine of Edinburgh wrote to Murray, 'It is a pity your Palinurus is so much less vigilant and active;' and the publisher himself, Dr. Smiles tell us, felt the necessity of expostulating with the editor. In May 1809, six weeks after the second number was already due, he wrote saying: '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.' This, as we have said, was six weeks after the Number was due. But with Gifford expostulations were of little use. He replied complaining that the delay and confusion were due to a want of confidential communications, and that Murray had too many advisers, and he himself too many masters. In many respects Gifford was an excellent editor. He was by no means as merciless as he has had the credit of being; but he was not a mau of business,