A good understanding was now established between Mr. Murray and his editor, and the Quarterly went on improving and gradually increased in circulation. Though regular in the irregularity of its publication, the subscribers seem to have become accustomed to the delay, and when it did make its appearance it was read with eagerness and avidity. The interest and variety of its contents, and the skill of the editor in the arrangement of his materials, made up for many shortcomings.

Murray and Gifford were in constant communication, and it is interesting to remember that the writer of the following judicious criticism had been editor of the Anti-Jacobin before he was editor of the Quarterly.

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

May 17, 1811.

"I have seldom been more pleased and vexed at a time than with the perusal of the enclosed MS. It has wit, it has ingenuity, but both are absolutely lost in a negligence of composition which mortifies me. Why will your young friend fling away talent which might so honourably distinguish him? He might, if be chose, be the ornament of our Review, instead of creating in one mingled regret and admiration. It is utterly impossible to insert such a composition as the present; there are expressions which would not be borne; and if, as you say, it will be sent to Jeffrey's if I do not admit it, however I may grieve, I must submit to the alternative. Articles of pure humour should be written with extraordinary attention. A vulgar laugh is detestable. I never saw much merit in writing rapidly. You will believe me when I tell you that I have been present at the production of more genuine wit and humour than almost any person of my time, and that it was revised and polished and arranged with a scrupulous care which overlooked nothing. I have not often seen fairer promises of excellence in this department than in your correspondent; but I tell you frankly that they will all be blighted and perish prematurely unless sedulously cultivated. It is a poor ambition to raise a casual laugh in the unreflecting.

The article did not appear in the Quarterly, and Mr. Pillans, the writer, afterwards became a contributor to the Edinburgh Review.

In a letter of August 25, 1811, we find Gifford writing to a correspondent: "Since the hour I was born I never enjoyed, as far as I can recollect, what you call health for a single day." In November, after discussing in a letter the articles which were about to appear in the next Review, he concluded: "I write in pain and must break off." In the following month Mr. Murray, no doubt in consideration of the start which his Review had made, sent him a present of £500. "I thank you," he answered (December 6), "very sincerely for your magnificent present; but £500 is a vast sum. However, you know your own business."

Yet Mr. Murray was by no means abounding in wealth. There were always those overdrawn bills from Edinburgh to be met, and Ballantyne and Constable were both tugging at him for accommodation at the same time.

The business arrangements with Constable & Co., which, save for the short interruption which has already been related, had extended over many years, were now about to come to an end. The following refers to the purchase of Mr. Miller's stock and the removal of Mr. Murray's business to Albemarle Street.

John Murray to Mr. Constable.

ALBEMARLE ST., October 27, 1812.

"I do not see any existing reason why we, who have so long been so very intimate, should now be placed in a situation of negative hostility. I am sure that we are well calculated to render to each other great services; you are the best judge whether your interests were ever before so well attended to as by me … The great connexion which I have for the last two years been maturing in Fleet Street I am now going to bring into action here; and it is not with any view to, or with any reliance upon, what Miller has done, but upon what I know I can do in such a situation, that I had long made up my mind to move. It is no sudden thing, but one long matured; and it is only from the accident of Miller's moving that I have taken his house; so that the notions which, I am told, you entertain respecting my plans are totally outside the ideas upon which it was formed…. I repeat, it is in my power to do you many services; and, certainly, I have bought very largely of you, and you never of me; and you know very well that I will serve you heartily if I can deal with you confidentially."

A truce was, for a time, made between the firms, but it proved hollow. The never-ending imposition of accommodation bills sent for acceptance had now reached a point beyond endurance, having regard to Murray's credit. The last letter from Murray to Constable & Co. was as follows:

John Murray to Constable & Co.

April 30, 1813.

GENTLEMEN,

I did not answer the letter to which the enclosed alludes, because its impropriety in all respects rendered it impossible for me to do so without involving myself in a personal dispute, which it is my anxious resolution to avoid: and because my determination was fully taken to abide by what I told you in my former letter, to which alone I can or could have referred you. You made an express proposition to me, to which, as you have deviated from it, it is not my intention to accede. The books may remain with me upon sale or return, until you please to order them elsewhere; and in the meantime I shall continue to avail myself of every opportunity to sell them. I return, therefore, an account and bills, with which I have nothing to do, and desire to have a regular invoice.

I am, gentlemen, yours truly,

J. MURRAY.

Constable & Co. fired off a final shot on May 28 following, and the correspondence and business between the firms then terminated.

No. 12 of the Quarterly appeared in December 1811, and perhaps the most interesting article in the number was that by Canning and Ellis, on Trotter's "Life of Fox." Gifford writes to Murray about this article:

"I have not seen Canning yet, but he is undoubtedly at work by this time. Pray take care that no one gets a sight of the slips. It will be a delightful article, but say not a word till it comes out."

A pamphlet had been published by W.S. Landor, dedicated to the President of the United States, entitled, "Remarks upon Memoirs of Mr. Fox lately published." Gifford was furious about it. He wrote to Murray:

Mr. Gifford to John Murray.

"I never read so rascally a thing as the Dedication. It is almost too bad for the Eatons and other publishers of mad democratic books. In the pamphlet itself there are many clever bits, but there is no taste and little judgment. His attacks on private men are very bad. Those on Mr. C. are too stupid to do much harm, or, indeed, any. The Dedication is the most abject piece of business that I ever read. It shows Landor to have a most rancorous and malicious heart. Nothing but a rooted hatred of his country could have made him dedicate his Jacobinical book to the most contemptible wretch that ever crept into authority, and whose only recommendation to him is his implacable enmity to his country. I think you might write to Southey; but I would not, on any account, have you publish such a scoundrel address."

The only entire article ever contributed to the Review by Gifford himself was that which he wrote, in conjunction with Barron Field, on Ford's "Dramatic Works." It was an able paper, but it contained a passage, the publication of which occasioned Gifford the deepest regret. Towards the conclusion of the article these words occurred: The Editor "has polluted his pages with the blasphemies of a poor maniac, who, it seems, once published some detached scenes of the 'Broken Heart.'" This referred to Charles Lamb, who likened the "transcendent scene [of the Spartan boy and Calantha] in imagination to Calvary and the Cross." Now Gifford had never heard of the personal history of Lamb, nor of the occasional fits of lunacy to which his sister Mary was subject; and when the paragraph was brought to his notice by Southey, through Murray, it caused him unspeakable distress. He at once wrote to Southey [Footnote: When the subject of a memoir of Charles Lamb by Serjeant Talfourd was under consideration, Southey wrote to a friend: "I wish that I had looked out for Mr. Talfourd the letter which Gifford wrote in reply to one in which I remonstrated with him upon his designation of Lamb as a poor maniac. The words were used in complete ignorance of their peculiar bearings, and I believe nothing in the course of Gifford's life ever occasioned him so much self-reproach. He was a man with whom I had no literary sympathies; perhaps there was nothing upon which we agreed, except great political questions; but I liked him the better ever after for his conduct on this occasion."] the following letter:

Mr. W. Gifford to Mr. Southey.

February 13, 1812.

MY DEAR SIR,

I break off here to say that I have this moment received your last letter to Murray. It has grieved and shocked me beyond expression; but, my dear friend, I am innocent so far as the intent goes. I call God to witness that in the whole course of my life I never heard one syllable of Mr. Lamb or his family. I knew not that he ever had a sister, or that he had parents living, or that he or any person connected with him had ever manifested the slightest tendency to insanity. In a word, I declare to you in the most solemn manner that all I ever knew or ever heard of Mr. Lamb was merely his name. Had I been aware of one of the circumstances which you mention, I would have lost my right arm sooner than have written what I have. The truth is, that I was shocked at seeing him compare the sufferings and death of a person who just continues to dance after the death of his lover is announced (for this is all his merit) to the pangs of Mount Calvary; and not choosing to attribute it to folly, because I reserved that charge for Weber, I unhappily in the present case ascribed it to madness, for which I pray God to forgive me, since the blow has fallen heavily when I really thought it would not be felt. I considered Lamb as a thoughtless scribbler, who, in circumstances of ease, amused himself by writing on any subject. Why I thought so, I cannot tell, but it was the opinion I formed to myself, for I now regret to say I never made any inquiry upon the subject; nor by any accident in the whole course of my life did I hear him mentioned beyond the name.

I remain, my dear Sir,

Yours most sincerely,

W. GIFFORD.

It is unnecessary to describe in detail the further progress of the Quarterly. The venture was now fairly launched. Occasionally, when some friction arose from the editorial pruning of Southey's articles, or when Mr. Murray remonstrated with the exclusion or inclusion of some particular article, Mr. Gifford became depressed, or complained, "This business begins to get too heavy for me, and I must soon have done, I fear." Such discouragement was only momentary. Gifford continued to edit the Review for many years, until and long after its complete success had become assured.

The following extract, from a letter of Southey's to his friend Bedford, describes very happily the position which Mr. Murray had now attained.

"Murray offers me a thousand guineas for my intended poem in blank verse, and begs it may not be a line longer than "Thomson's Seasons"! I rather think the poem will be a post obit, and in that case, twice that sum, at least, may be demanded for it. What his real feelings may be towards me, I cannot tell; but he is a happy fellow, living in the light of his own glory. The Review is the greatest of all works, and it is all his own creation; he prints 10,000, and fifty times ten thousand read its contents, in the East and in the West. Joy be with him and his journal!"