We had, equally to our joy and surprise, a flying visit from Heber about three weeks ago. He staid but three days, but, between old stories and new, we made them very merry in their passage. During his stay, John Murray, the bookseller in Fleet Street, who has more real knowledge of what concerns his business than any of his brethren—at least, than any of them that I know—came to canvass a most important plan, of which I am now, in “dern privacie,” to give you the outline. I had most strongly recommended to our Lord Advocate (the Right Hon. J. C. Colquhoun) to think of some counter measures against the Edinburgh Review, which, politically speaking, is doing incalculable damage. I do not mean this in a party way; the present ministry are not all I could wish them, for (Canning excepted) I doubt there is among them too much self-seeking. . . . But their political principles are sound English principles, and, compared to the greedy and inefficient horde which preceded them, they are angels of light and purity. It is obvious, however, that they want defenders, both in and out of doors. Pitt’s
“Love and fear glued many friends to him; And now he’s fallen, those tough co-mixtures melt.”
|
* The remainder of this letter, which deals with the proposed Novelists’ Library, is printed in the preceding chapter. |
| SCOTT’S VIEWS ABOUT THE ‘QUARTERLY.’ | 101 |
Now, I think there is balm in Gilead for all this, and that the
cure lies in instituting such a Review in London as should be conducted totally independent of
bookselling influence, on a plan as liberal as that of the Edinburgh, its
literature as well supported, and its principles English and constitutional.
Accordingly, I have been given to understand that Mr. William Gifford is willing to become the conductor of such
a work, and I have written to him, at the Lord
Advocate’s desire, a very voluminous letter on the
subject. Now, should this plan succeed, you must hang your birding-piece on its
hook, take down your old Anti-Jacobin
armour, and “remember your swashing blow.” It is
not that I think this projected Review ought to be exclusively or principally
political; this would, in my opinion, absolutely counteract its purpose, which
I think should be to offer to those who love their country, and to those whom
we would wish to love it, a periodical work of criticism conducted with equal
talent, but upon sounder principles. Is not this very possible? In point of
learning, you Englishmen have ten times our scholarship; and, as for talent and
genius, “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than
any of the rivers in Israel?” Have we not yourself and your
cousin, the Roses, Malthus,
Matthias,
Gifford, Heber,
and his brother? Can I not
| 102 | MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY |
Heber’s fear was lest we should fail in procuring regular steady contributors; but I know so much of the interior discipline of reviewing as to have no apprehension of that. Provided we are once set a-going by a few dashing numbers, there would be no fear of enlisting regular contributors; but the amateurs must bestir themselves in the first instance. From the Government we should be entitled to expect confidential communications as to points of fact (so far as fit to be made public) in our political disquisitions. With this advantage, our good cause and St. George to boot, we may at least divide the field with our formidable competitors, who, after all, are much better at cutting than parrying, and whose uninterrupted triumph has as much unfitted them for resisting a serious attack as it has done Buonaparte for the Spanish war. Jeffrey is, to be sure, a man of the most uncommon versatility of talent, but what then?
“General Howe is a gallant commander, There are others as gallant as he.” |
