“September 25th, 1807.
“Sir,—I venture to address you upon a subject that is perhaps not undeserving of one moment of your attention.
“There is a work entitled the Edinburgh Review, written with such unquestionable talent that it has already attained an extent of circulation not equalled by any similar publication. The principles of this work are, however, so radically bad, that I have been led to consider the effect which such sentiments, so generally diffused, are likely to produce, and to think that some means equally popular ought to be adopted to counteract their dangerous tendency. But the publication in question is conducted with so much ability, and is sanctioned and circulated with such high and decisive authority by the party of whose opinions it is the organ, that there is little hope of producing against it any effectual opposition, unless it arise from you, sir, and from your friends. Should you, sir, think the idea worthy of encouragement I should, with equal pride and willingness, engage my arduous exertions to promote its success; but as my object is nothing short of producing a work of the greatest talent and importance, I shall entertain it no longer, if it be not so fortunate as to obtain the high patronage which I have thus, sir, taken the liberty to solicit.
“Permit me to add, sir, that the person who thus addresses you is no adventurer, but a man of some property, including a business that has been established for nearly half a century. I therefore trust that my application will be attributed to its proper motives, and that your goodness will at least pardon its intrusion.
“I have the honour to be, Sir, &c., &c.,
“John Murray.”
Canning read the letter, and though for the present it was put away in his desk unanswered, the contents were not forgotten, for a few years before this he had heard Murray’s name mentioned in a very honourable way. Some Etonians, among them Canning’s nephew, had started a periodical called the Miniature, which brought them some fame, but left them under a pecuniary loss. Murray, with his usual good nature, and with something of the tact which afterwards made him so many powerful friends, took all copies off their hands, paid all their expenses, and though he found little demand for the work, offered to print a new edition. This was a trait of character that, with a clear-headed, far-seeing man like Canning, would probably go far. As yet, however, the Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, though he gave the matter careful consideration, did not care to commit himself upon paper.
Two months, however, before this letter Scott and Southey had been corresponding about the Edinburgh Review, Southey stating that he felt himself unable to contribute to a periodical of such political views, and Scott heartily agreeing in deprecating the general tone of the Review.
Early in 1808, a very severe article came out in the Review anent “Marmion.” Murray pricked up his ears, and, as he afterwards told Lockhart, “When I read the article on ‘Marmion,’ and another on general politics in the same number of the Review I said to myself, ‘Walter Scott has feelings both as a gentleman and as a Tory, which those people must now have wounded. The alliance between him and the whole clique of the Edinburgh Review, the proprietor included, is shaken,’” “and,” adds Lockhart, “as far at least as the political part of the affair was concerned, John Murray’s sagacity was not at fault.”
Murray saw that the right way to approach Scott was through the Ballantynes’ printing press, in which Scott at this time was a secret partner, and in which he always expressed openly the greatest interest. So urgent did Murray’s tenders of work become that a meeting at Ferrybridge, in Yorkshire, was arranged; and here Murray received from Ballantyne the gratifying news that Scott had quarrelled with Constable, and that it was resolved to establish a rival firm. Murray, who never wasted an opportunity from lack of decision, posted on to Ashestiel and had an interview with Scott himself, and the proposal of a new quarterly Tory periodical was eagerly snatched at. Strangely enough Murray arrived just as Scott, after reading an article on Spanish matters, had written to have his name erased from the list of subscribers to the Edinburgh. Murray was able to announce, too, that Gifford, the editor of the late Anti-Jacobin, had promised co-operation, and in a letter to Gifford we see Scott’s satisfaction clearly enough:—
“John Murray of Fleet Street, a young bookseller of capital and enterprize, and with more good sense and propriety of sentiment than fall to the share of most of the trade, made me a visit at Ashestiel a few weeks ago, and as I found he had had some communication with you on the subject, I did not hesitate to communicate my sentiments to him on these and some other points of the plan, and I thought his ideas were most liberal and satisfactory.”
Soon after Canning wrote to the Lord Advocate on the subject, and the Lord Advocate communicated with Scott, who recommended that in all things save politics the Edinburgh should be taken as a model, especially in the liberal payment of all contributors, and in the unfettered judgment of the editor. Gifford was unanimously fixed on as fitted for the editorial chair. That he possessed vigour was apparent from his success—a plough-boy, a sailor, a cobbler, then a classical scholar, the translator of “Juvenal,” the biting satirist of the “Baviad and Mæviad,” the brilliant editor of the Anti-Jacobin, who so well suited to out-rival Jeffrey?
All the talent available was secured. Scott came to town to be present at the birth of the expected prodigy, and well he might, for three of the articles in the first number were his own. Rose, and young Disraeli, and Hookham Frere, and Robert Southey—the future back-bone of the Review—were all represented, and on 1st February, 1809, the first number of the Quarterly Review was published. According to tradition there were high jinks at Murray’s shop in Fleet Street when the first numbers arrived from the binders; a triumphal column of the books “was raised aloft in solemn joy in the counting-house, the best wine in the cellar was uncorked, and glasses in hand John Murray and assistants danced jubilant round the pile.” The pile, however, did not long remain, as so many famous columns have done to mock the hope of its builders, but the whole issue was sold almost immediately, and a second edition was called for.
To the second number Canning himself contributed, and received his payment of ten guineas per sheet. Barrow, too, was introduced, who contributed, in all, no less than one hundred and ninety-five articles, “on every subject, from ‘China’ to ‘Life Assurance.’” After Barrow and Croker, Southey was, perhaps, the most prolific; to the first hundred and twenty-six numbers he contributed ninety-four articles—many of them of great permanent value—and to him Murray uniformly exhibited a generosity almost without parallel. For an article on the “Lives of Nelson,” he received twenty guineas a sheet, double what Southey himself acknowledged to be ample, and he was offered £100 to enlarge the article into a volume, and having exceeded the estimated quantity of print, Murray paid him double the amount stipulated, adding another 200 guineas when the book was revised for the “Family Library.” For the review of the “Life of Wellington,” Southey got £100, and he thought the sum so large that he himself calls it “a ridiculous price;” yet this ridiculous price he continued to receive, and he was in the habit of saying that he was as much overpaid for his articles by Murray, as he was underpaid for the rest of his work for other publishers. “Madoc,” of which he had great hopes, brought him £3 19s. 1d. for the first twelvemonth, and the three volumes of the “History of the Brazils,” scarcely paid their expenses of publication.
Of the other contributors it is unnecessary to speak fully here; but the Review, now that it was established, gave Murray at once a pre-eminence in the London trade, by bringing him into connection with the chief Conservative statesmen, and with the principal literary men in England.