A DINNER WITH JUDGES

217

was, "We were immediately in our old, familiar, rollicking mood."1

3

"At dinner," said Elwin, "I found myself between Lord Broughton and Lord Wensleydale. Upon the other side of Lord Broughton was Lord Brougham. It chanced that we talked of the Hours of Idleness, and Lord Brougham assured us that he did not write (as he is always now supposed to have done) the famous satirical article upon it in the Edinburgh Review. He read the criticism before it was published, and approved of it, but he was not the author, nor did he know who he was, though he supposed it to be Jeffrey. Lord Broughton described the effect the article had upon Byron. 'It is all over with me,' he said, 'I am done for, for ever.' 'Nonsense,' Lord Broughton replied, 'write something else, and show these critics that you are a cleverer man than they take you for.' 'No,' said Byron, 'it is no usethere is an end of me.' At that time he had displayed no power, but it was in him, and it is curious to see how ignorant he was of it. It should be a lesson to all men not to be daunted or despair.

"Bellenden Ker said of Lord Brougham, after he was gone, 'There is always a foundation of truth in his statements, but he is such a terrible exaggerator.' 'No, no,' said Lyndhurst, 'I do not admit that. I consider that the worst exaggerator is the person who understates.' This is an original remark, and a just one. There are a great many timid people who convey as false impressions, and do as much mischief, by tame, inadequate expressions and descriptions, as others by their over-vehemence and hyperboles."4

1 Life of Lord Campbell, vol. ii. p. 372.

2 John Cam Hobhouse, Lord Byron's friend.

3 Jeffrey also repudiated the authorship (see Medwin's Conversations of Lord Byron at Pisa, p. 174). To Miss Holley, June 27, 1859.

CHAPTER X.

1859-1860

QUARTERLY REVIEW WORK-THE VOLUNTEER MOVEMENT-ORATORY-RESIGNATION OF THE EDITORSHIP

U

NPUNCTUALITY of publication had been a failing of the Quarterly Review in the days of Gifford. When the second number was lagging grievously behind time, the elder Murray wrote to him, on May 11th, 1809, "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. I know not what to do to facilitate your labour, for the articles which you have long had lie scattered without attention, and those which I ventured to send to the printer undergo such retarding corrections that even by this mode we do not advance. I entreat the favour of your exertion. For the last five months my most imperative concerns have yielded to this, without the hope of my anxiety or labour ceasing." When the fourth number was over a month late, Gifford wrote to Murray, "We must, upon the publication of this number, enter into some plan for ensuring regularity."2 But the fault 1 Smiles's Memoir of John Murray, vol. i. p. 156. 2 The same, p. 168

DELAYS OF THE REVIEW

219

continued, and George Ellis complained of it as the "one intelligible obstacle to the extensive success" of the Review.1

Elwin's delays were less prolonged than Gifford's, but he was as incorrigible an offender; and though the third John Murray's remonstrances were less vehement than his father's, they were equally persistent. The number for January, 1859, was late, as usual, and the publisher again suggested that the editor might "at least get forward with his own papers, so as to have more leisure to devote to those of others at the last." "You overlook," reiterated Elwin, "that the writing them is only a part, and an insignificant part, too, of the whole labour. I am a conscientious reviewer. I never write upon a man till I have read every word I can find about him, nor criticise a book till I have read every line of it. The works of most of our great authors are voluminous, and though I believe I have a general acquaintance with all of them, I never pronounce upon them from memory. You may imagine that it is not the business of a week or a fortnight to prepare myself, especially when I can only devote a part of the day to it. It is therefore inevitable, in the majority of instances, that the actual composition should be at the close of the quarter and not at the beginning. My habits of mind would not permit me to put pen to paper with imperfect views and partial information. I am bent upon enforcing punctuality upon the contributors, and ensuring the punctual publication of the Review, but upon other points I can hold out no hope of greater diligence than I have hitherto used. Perfect editors do not exist any more than perfect men. Every person will fail somewhere, especially when he has to deal with a variety of in1 Smiles's Memoir of John Murray, p. 188.

dividuals and conflicting interests and opinions, but I have always thought, with all sincerity, that there were many who could manage the Review better than I do." Elwin imagined that Murray had intended to imply that the articles of contributors were imperfectly revised. "As you seem," he said, “to call for improvement in a department in which I conceive I have laboured to the uttermost of my ability and strength, I am obliged to state distinctly that it is altogether beyond my power to do more in it than I have hitherto done, and earnestly to request that I may be released from the task if you have the least feeling of dissatisfaction upon this head."1

Whatever momentary irritation might be caused by criticisms was always dispelled immediately by Murray's gracious replies. Three days after Elwin agreed to go up to London to join a party at Albemarle Street, to which the publisher had invited some promising writers with a view to enlisting them into the service of the Review. "I have not much hope, however," the editor wrote, "of finding new recruits. I have experienced too many disappointments to be very sanguine. I have come to learn that you may find more good anythings than good writers. There are plenty of scholars, no doubt, who can turn out grammatical composition, but it is as dull as it is grammatical. Men who have special knowledge, but little power of writing, are almost the best strings we can get to our bow, with a rare exception here and there. By all means let us continue our search. It is only by looking among the pebbles that we can find an occasional gem." 2

The Quarterly Review for January, 1859, contained Elwin's second instalment of the Life of Dr. Johnson. Soon after its publication, Murray forwarded to him a

1 To Murray, Jan. 29, 1859.

2 The same, Feb. 1, 1859.

ARTICLE ON DR. JOHNSON

221

letter from Lord Broughton, in which he said, "By the way, your last Quarterly contains more than one most masterly article. I read the Johnson only yesterday with tears of admiration. Indeed, there are some traits in the character of that good and glorious man that I can never contemplate siccis oculis." The praise came as a most opportune encouragement, while the editor was feeling depressed by the difficulties attendant upon his work. He wrote to Murray, "Mrs. Elwin sometimes upbraids me for being apathetic about what I write, or what becomes of it. This arises in part from my loving literature for its own sake, without reference to any other result than the personal delight I take in it; in part, from my setting very little store by notoriety of any description; and in part, from my conviction of the insignificance of my productions. To say this comes naturally into my mind at the present moment because, when I read the letter of Lord Broughton at breakfast, she exclaimed that she was glad to find that I could be moved by commendation. It really gave me more pleasure than I ever received from anything of the kind before. The particular phrase which he used was of all the phrases he could have selected from the English language, the one which gratifies me the most. I, too, read portions of Johnson's character with tears in my eyes. There are traits which have this effect upon me whenever I think of them, though it is for the hundredth time. I had no idea that I had succeeded in conveying this impression in the article, and to find that it has left this feeling in the mind of a man like Lord Broughton is an immense satisfaction to me. I am charmed also by the epithets which he applies to Johnson. That so noble a specimen of humanity should 1 Lord Broughton to Murray, Feb. 20, 1859.