To this Mr. Longman replied:—
From Mr. T. Longman
January 14th.—I will have the calculation made of the articles you mention. I conclude you would wish to print in the usual demy 8vo. form, like Macaulay's Essays and all the other reprints from the 'E.R.'
The plan of a division of profits has been usual in such republications; and it seems peculiarly adapted to them, as neither the contributor nor the publisher can republish separately without the consent of the other. Whether that plan of publication may be a road to fortune or not depends on the demand for the book. I had once the satisfaction of paying 20,000 £ on one year's account, on that principle, to Lord Macaulay. I certainly had no expectation of a fortune from the republication which produced you 2 £ 3_s_. 0_d_.; but had I purchased the right of separate publication for 100 £, I hardly think you would have been satisfied that fortune should have so favoured you at my expense. It seems to be the fashion to decry that mode of publication; but there will always be books that can be published on no other terms, unless at the cost and risk of the author.
From Lord Westbury
Hinton St. George, January 12th.—I am glad to find that you have returned in safety from Paris with your oratorical honours [Footnote: Of the French speech in Paris on the 8th.] rich upon you. I do not think that even Cicero ventured on making an oration in Greek, in Athens; but you have charmed fastidious Paris with your pure accent and your classic French. I was in despair when I found your eloquence imputed to another name; but I heard the error was so generally corrected that you may count on your fame descending unchallenged to posterity.
I should agree with you that Franco was to be despaired of, if France were to be considered as subject to ordinary rules. But she is, and has ever been, so anomalous, that ordinary moral reasoning from history is wholly inapplicable to her. At present, one would think she had reached the lowest depth of moral degradation. She might be usefully touched to the quick, if she could only believe that she is becoming ridiculous in the eyes of Europe.
Not that we can expect a much better fate. When the Treaty of Washington was published, I strove to awaken in the minds of several leading men a full sense of its folly, and of the calamitous consequences that would be sure to follow from such an act of foolish, gratuitous submission; but I made no impression; not even as to the absurdity of introducing new and ill-considered rules, and giving them a retrospective operation. I succeeded with no one. I therefore concluded I must be in the wrong. Now, however, the American indictment bears testimony to the accuracy of my forebodings. I entreated Lord Granville not to permit the arbitration to go on upon such a basis, which it was never intended that the reference should cover or include. It is a fraudulent attempt to extend the reference most unwarrantably; and if the arbitration is permitted to proceed on such a claim, the consequences will be most disastrous. It is a sad spectacle to see a once gallant and high-spirited nation submitting tamely to be thus bullied. If not firmly protested against, and resisted in limine, you will have an award which England will repudiate with indignation; and war, the fear of which has made us submit to these indignities, will be sure to follow.
The relative attitudes of England and the United States in 1896 and 1897 have not materially differed from those of 1872. The policy which has been persistently followed by this country has not yet resulted in war, but it seems to many now, as it did to Lord Westbury then, extremely likely to do so. Peace between two such countries can only be assured when it rests on mutual respect and a community of interests. We may persuade ourselves that, in the main, our true interests are identical; but the recent diplomatic correspondence from the States does not tell of much respect.
But as to the point at issue in 1872, Reeve wrote in reply to Lord
Westbury, about January 15th:—