Scott's "poor Irish friend Maturin," referred to in the previous chapter, was a young Irish clergyman, who was under the necessity of depending upon his brains and pen for the maintenance of his family. Charles Maturin, after completing his course of education at Trinity College, married Miss Harriet Kinsburg. His family grew, but not his income. He took orders, and obtained the curacy of St. Peter's Church, Dublin, but owing to his father's affairs having become embarrassed, he was compelled to open a boarding-school, with the view of assisting the family. Unfortunately, he became bound for a friend, who deceived him, and eventually he was obliged to sacrifice his interest in the school. Being thus driven to extremities, he tried to live by literature, and produced "The Fatal Revenge; or, the Family of Montorio," the first of a series of romances, in which he outdid Mrs. Radcliffe and Monk Lewis. "The Fatal Revenge" was followed by "The Wild Irish Boy," for which Colburn gave him £80, and "The Milesian Chief," all full of horrors and misty grandeur. These works did not bring him in much money; but, in 1815, he determined to win the height of dramatic fame in his "Bertram; or, the Castle of St. Aldebrand," a tragedy. He submitted the drama to Walter Scott, as from an "obscure Irishman," telling him of his sufferings as an author and the father of a family, and imploring his kind opinion. Scott replied in the most friendly manner, gave him much good advice, spoke of the work as "grand and powerful, the characters being sketched with masterly enthusiasm"; and, what was practically better, sent him £50 as a token of his esteem and sympathy, and as a temporary stop-gap until better times came round. He moreover called the attention of Lord Byron, then on the Committee of Management of Drury Lane Theatre, to the play, and his Lordship strongly recommended a performance of it. Thanks to the splendid acting of Kean, it succeeded, and Maturin realized about £1,000.

"Bertram" was published by Murray, a circumstance which brought him into frequent communication with the unfortunate Maturin. The latter offered more plays, more novels, and many articles for the Quarterly. With reference to one of his articles—a review of Sheil's "Apostate" —Gifford said, "A more potatoe-headed arrangement, or rather derangement, I have never seen. I have endeavoured to bring some order out of the chaos. There is a sort of wild eloquence in it that makes it worth preserving."

Maturin continued to press his literary work on Murray, who however, though he relieved him by the gift of several large sums of money, declined all further offers of publication save the tragedy of "Manuel."

John Murray to Lord Byron.

March 15, 1817.

"Maturin's new tragedy, 'Manuel,' appeared on Saturday last, and I am sorry to say that the opinion of Mr. Gifford was established by the impression made on the audience. The first act very fine, the rest exhibiting a want of judgment not to be endured. It was brought out with uncommon splendour, and was well acted. Kean's character as an old man—a warrior—was new and well sustained, for he had, of course, selected it, and professed to be—and he acted as if he were—really pleased with it…. I have undertaken to print the tragedy at my own expense, and to give the poor Author the whole of the profit."

In 1824 Maturin died, in Dublin, in extreme poverty.

The following correspondence introduces another great name in English literature. It is not improbable that it was Southey who suggested to Murray the employment of his brother-in-law, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, from his thorough knowledge of German, as the translator of Goethe's "Faust." The following is Mr. Coleridge's first letter to Murray:

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

JOSIAH WADE'S, Esq., 2, QUEEN'S SQUARE, BRISTOL. [August 23, 1814.]

Dear Sir,

I have heard, from my friend Mr. Charles Lamb, writing by desire of Mr. Robinson, that you wish to have the justly-celebrated "Faust" of Goethe translated, and that some one or other of my partial friends have induced you to consider me as the man most likely to execute the work adequately, those excepted, of course, whose higher power (established by the solid and satisfactory ordeal of the wide and rapid sale of their works) it might seem profanation to employ in any other manner than in the development of their own intellectual organization. I return my thanks to the recommender, whoever he be, and no less to you for your flattering faith in the recommendation; and thinking, as I do, that among many volumes of praiseworthy German poems, the "Louisa" of Voss, and the "Faust" of Goethe, are the two, if not the only ones, that are emphatically original in their conception, and characteristic of a new and peculiar sort of thinking and imagining, I should not be averse from exerting my best efforts in an attempt to import whatever is importable of either or of both into our own language.

But let me not be suspected of a presumption of which I am not consciously guilty, if I say that I feel two difficulties; one arising from long disuse of versification, added to what I know, better than the most hostile critic could inform me, of my comparative weakness; and the other, that any work in Poetry strikes me with more than common awe, as proposed for realization by myself, because from long habits of meditation on language, as the symbolic medium of the connection of Thought with Thought, and of Thoughts as affected and modified by Passion and Emotion, I should spend days in avoiding what I deemed faults, though with the full preknowledge that their admission would not have offended perhaps three of all my readers, and might be deemed Beauties by 300—if so many there were; and this not out of any respect for the Public (i.e. the persons who might happen to purchase and look over the Book), but from a hobby-horsical, superstitious regard to my own feelings and sense of Duty. Language is the sacred Fire in this Temple of Humanity, and the Muses are its especial and vestal Priestesses. Though I cannot prevent the vile drugs and counterfeit Frankincense, which render its flame at once pitchy, glowing, and unsteady, I would yet be no voluntary accomplice in the Sacrilege. With the commencement of a PUBLIC, commences the degradation of the GOOD and the BEAUTIFUL—both fade and retire before the accidentally AGREEABLE. "Othello" becomes a hollow lip-worship; and the "CASTLE SPECTRE," or any more recent thing of Froth, Noise, and Impermanence, that may have overbillowed it on the restless sea of curiosity, is the true Prayer of Praise and Admiration.

I thought it right to state to you these opinions of mine, that you might know that I think the Translation of the "Faust" a task demanding (from me, I mean), no ordinary efforts—and why? This—that it is painful, very painful, and even odious to me, to attempt anything of a literary nature, with any motive of pecuniary advantage; but that I bow to the all-wise Providence, which has made me a poor man, and therefore compelled me by other duties inspiring feelings, to bring even my Intellect to the Market. And the finale is this. I should like to attempt the Translation. If you will mention your terms, at once and irrevocably (for I am an idiot at bargaining, and shrink from the very thought), I will return an answer by the next Post, whether in my present circumstances, I can or cannot undertake it. If I do, I will do it immediately; but I must have all Goethe's works, which I cannot procure in Bristol; for to give the "Faust" without a preliminary critical Essay would be worse than nothing, as far as regards the PUBLIC. If you were to ask me as a Friend, whether I think it would suit the General Taste, I should reply that I cannot calculate on caprice and accident (for instance, some fashionable man or review happening to take it up favourably), but that otherwise my fears would be stronger than my hopes. Men of genius will admire it, of necessity. Those most, who think deepest and most imaginatively. The "Louisa" would delight all of good hearts.

I remain, dear Sir, With due respect, S.T. COLERIDGE.

To this letter Mr. Murray replied as follows:

John Murray to Mr. Coleridge.

August 29, 1814.

Dear Sir,

I feel greatly obliged by the favour of your attention to the request which I had solicited our friend Mr. Robinson to make to you for the translation of Goethe's extraordinary drama of "Faust," which I suspect that no one could do justice to besides yourself. It will be the first attempt to render into classical English a German work of peculiar but certainly of unquestionable Genius; and you must allow that its effects upon the public must be doubtful. I am desirous however of making the experiment, and this I would not do under a less skilful agent than the one to whom I have applied. I am no less anxious that you should receive, as far as I think the thing can admit, a fair remuneration; and trusting that you will not undertake it unless you feel disposed to execute the labour perfectly con amore, and in a style of versification equal to "Remorse," I venture to propose to you the sum of One Hundred Pounds for the Translation and the preliminary Analysis, with such passages translated as you may judge proper of the works of Goethe, with a copy of which I will have the pleasure of supplying you as soon as I have your final determination. The sum which I mention shall be paid to you in two months from the day on which you place the complete Translation and Analysis in my hands; this will allow a reasonable time for your previous correction of the sheets through the press. I shall be glad to hear from you by return of Post, if convenient, as I propose to set out this week for the Continent. If this work succeeds, I am in hopes that it will lead to many similar undertakings.

With sincere esteem, I am, dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, J. Murray

I should hope that it might not prove inconvenient to you to complete the whole for Press in the course of November next.

Mr. Coleridge replied as follows, from the same address:

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

August 31, 1814.

Dear Sir,

I have received your letter. Considering the necessary labour, and (from the questionable nature of the original work, both as to its fair claims to Fame—the diction of the good and wise according to unchanging principles—and as to its chance for Reputation, as an accidental result of local and temporary taste), the risk of character on the part of the Translator, who will assuredly have to answer for any disappointment of the reader, the terms proposed are humiliatingly low; yet such as, under modifications, I accede to. I have received testimonials from men not merely of genius according to my belief, but of the highest accredited reputation, that my translation of "Wallenstein" was in language and in metre superior to the original, and the parts most admired were substitutions of my own, on a principle of compensation. Yet the whole work went for waste-paper. I was abused—nay, my own remarks in the Preface were transferred to a Review, as the Reviewer's sentiments against me, without even a hint that he had copied them from my own Preface. Such was the fate of "Wallenstein"! And yet I dare appeal to any number of men of Genius—say, for instance, Mr. W. Scott, Mr. Southey, Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sotheby, Sir G. Beaumont, etc., whether the "Wallenstein" with all its defects (and it has grievous defects), is not worth all Schiller's other plays put together. But I wonder not. It was too good, and not good enough; and the advice of the younger Pliny: "Aim at pleasing either all, or the few," is as prudentially good as it is philosophically accurate. I wrote to Mr. Longman before the work was published, and foretold its fate, even to a detailed accuracy, and advised him to put up with the loss from the purchase of the MSS and of the Translation, as a much less evil than the publication. I went so far as to declare that its success was, in the state of public Taste, impossible; that the enthusiastic admirers of "The Robbers," "Cabal and Love," etc., would lay the blame on me; and that he himself would suspect that if he had only lit on another Translator then, etc. Everything took place as I had foretold, even his own feelings—so little do Prophets gain from the fulfilment of their Prophecies!

On the other hand, though I know that executed as alone I can or dare do it—that is, to the utmost of my power (for which the intolerable Pain, nay the far greater Toil and Effort of doing otherwise, is a far safer Pledge than any solicitude on my part concerning the approbation of the PUBLIC), the translation of so very difficult a work as the "Faustus," will be most inadequately remunerated by the terms you propose; yet they very probably are the highest it may be worth your while to offer to me. I say this as a philosopher; for, though I have now been much talked of, and written of, for evil and not for good, but for suspected capability, yet none of my works have ever sold. The "Wallenstein" went to the waste. The "Remorse," though acted twenty times, rests quietly on the shelves in the second edition, with copies enough for seven years' consumption, or seven times seven. I lost £200 by the non-payment, from forgetfulness, and under various pretences, by "The Friend"; [Footnote: Twenty-seven numbers of The Friend were published by Coleridge at Penrith in Cumberland in 1809-10, but the periodical proved a failure, principally from the irregularity of its appearance. It was about this time that he was addicted to opium-eating.] and for my poems I did get from £10 to £15. And yet, forsooth, the Quarterly Review attacks me for neglecting and misusing my powers! I do not quarrel with the Public—all is as it must be—but surely the Public (if there be such a Person) has no right to quarrel with me for not getting into jail by publishing what they will not read!

The "Faust," you perhaps know, is only a Fragment. Whether Goethe ever will finish it, or whether it is ever his object to do so, is quite unknown. A large proportion of the work cannot be rendered in blank verse, but must be given in wild lyrical metres; and Mr. Lamb informs me that the Baroness de StaËl has given a very unfavourable account of the work. Still, however, I will undertake it, and that instantly, so as to let you have the last sheet by the middle of November, on the following terms:

1. That on the delivery of the last MS. sheet you remit 100 guineas to Mrs. Coleridge, or Mr. Robert Southey, at a bill of five weeks. 2. That I, or my widow or family, may, any time after two years from the first publication, have the privilege of reprinting it in any collection of all my poetical writings, or of my works in general, which set off with a Life of me, might perhaps be made profitable to my widow. And 3rd, that if (as I long ago meditated) I should re-model the whole, give it a finale, and be able to bring it, thus re-written and re-cast, on the stage, it shall not be considered as a breach of the engagement between us, I on my part promising that you shall, for an equitable consideration, have the copy of this new work, either as a separate work, or forming a part of the same volume or both, as circumstances may dictate to you. When I say that I am confident that in this possible and not probable case, I should not repeat or retain one fifth of the original, you will perceive that I consult only my dread of appearing to act amiss, as it would be even more easy to compose the whole anew.

If these terms suit you I will commence the Task as soon as I receive Goethe's works from you. If you could procure Goethe's late Life of himself, which extends but a short way, or any German biographical work of the Germans living, it would enable me to render the preliminary Essay more entertaining.

Respectfully, dear Sir,

S.T. COLERIDGE.

Mr. Murray's reply to this letter has not been preserved. At all events, nothing further was done by Coleridge with respect to the translation of "Faust," which is to be deplored, as his exquisite and original melody of versification might have produced a translation almost as great as the original.

Shortly after Coleridge took up his residence with the Gillmans at Highgate, and his intercourse with Murray recommenced. Lord Byron, while on the managing committee of Drury Lane Theatre, had been instrumental in getting Coleridge's "Remorse" played upon the stage, as he entertained a great respect for its author. He was now encouraging Mr. Murray to publish other works by Coleridge—among others, "Zapolya" and "Christabel."

On April 12, 1816, Coleridge gave the following lines to Mr. Murray, written in his own hand: [Footnote: The "Song, by Glycine" was first published in "Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," 1817, Part II., Act ii., Scene I. It was set to music by W. Patten in 1836; and again, with the title "May Song," in 1879, by B.H. Loehr.]

GLYCINE: Song.

"A sunny shaft did I behold,
From sky to earth it slanted,
And pois'd therein a Bird so bold—
Sweet bird! thou wert enchanted!
He sank, he rose, he twinkled, he troll'd,
Within that shaft of sunny mist:
His Eyes of Fire, his Beak of Gold,
All else of Amethyst!
And thus he sang: Adieu! Adieu!
Love's dreams prove seldom true.
Sweet month of May! we must away!
Far, far away!
Today! today!"

In the following month (May 8, 1816) Mr. Coleridge offered Mr. Murray his "Remorse" for publication, with a Preface. He also offered his poem of "Christabel," still unfinished. For the latter Mr. Murray agreed to give him seventy guineas, "until the other poems shall be completed, when the copyright shall revert to the author," and also £20 for permission to publish the poem entitled "Kubla Khan."

Next month (June 6) Murray allowed Coleridge £50 for an edition of "Zapolya: A Christmas Tale," which was then in MS.; and he also advanced him another £50 for a play which was still to be written. "Zapolya" was afterwards entrusted to another publisher (Rest Fenner), and Coleridge repaid Murray £50. Apparently (see letter of March 29, 1817) Murray very kindly forewent repayment of the second advance of £50. There was, of course, no obligation to excuse a just debt, but the three issues of "Christabel" had resulted in a net profit of a little over £100 to the publisher.

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

HIGHGATE, July 4, 1816.

I have often thought that there might be set on foot a review of old books, i.e., of all works important or remarkable, the authors of which are deceased, with a probability of a tolerable sale, if only the original plan were a good one, and if no articles were admitted but from men who understood and recognized the Principles and Rules of Criticism, which should form the first number. I would not take the works chronologically, but according to the likeness or contrast of the kind of genius—ex. gr. Jeremy Taylor, Milton (his prose works), and Burke—Dante and Milton—Scaliger and Dr. Johnson. Secondly, if especial attention were paid to all men who had produced, or aided in producing, any great revolution in the Taste or opinions of an age, as Petrarch, Ulrich von Hutten, etc. (here I will dare risk the charge of self-conceit by referring to my own parallel of Voltaire and Erasmus, of Luther and Rousseau in the seventh number of "The Friend "). Lastly, if proper care was taken that in every number of the Review there should be a fair proportion of positively amusing matter, such as a review of Paracelsus, Cardan, Old Fuller; a review of Jest Books, tracing the various metempsychosis of the same joke through all ages and countries; a History of Court Fools, for which a laborious German has furnished ample and highly interesting materials; foreign writers, though alive, not to be excluded, if only their works are of established character in their own country, and scarcely heard of, much less translated, in English literature. Jean Paul Richter would supply two or three delightful articles.

Any works which should fall in your way respecting the Jews since the
destruction of the Temple, I should of course be glad to look through.
Above all, Mezeray's (no! that is not the name, I think) "History of the
Jews," that I must have.

I shall be impatient for the rest of Mr. Frere's sheets. Most unfeignedly can I declare that I am unable to decide whether the admiration which the excellence inspires, or the wonder which the knowledge of the countless difficulties so happily overcome, never ceases to excite in my mind during the re-perusal and collation of them with the original Greek, be the greater. I have not a moment's hesitation in fixing on Mr. Frere as the man of the correctest and most genial taste among all our contemporaries whom I have ever met with, personally or in their works. Should choice or chance lead you to sun and air yourself on Highgate Hill during any of your holiday excursions, my worthy friend and his amiable and accomplished wife will be happy to see you. We dine at four, and drink tea at six.

Yours, dear Sir, respectfully, S.T. COLERIDGE.

Mr. Murray did not accept Mr. Coleridge's proposal to publish his works in a collected form or his articles for the Quarterly, as appears from the following letter:

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

HIGHGATE, March 26, 1817.

DEAR SIR,

I cannot be offended by your opinion that my talents are not adequate to the requisites of matter and manner for the Quarterly Review, nor should I consider it as a disgrace to fall short of Robert Southey in any department of literature. I owe, however, an honest gratification to the conversation between you and Mr. Gillman, for I read Southey's article, on which Mr. Gillman and I have, it appears, formed very different opinions. It is, in my judgment, a very masterly article. [Footnote: This must have been Southey's article on Parliamentary Reform in No. 31, which, though due in October 1816, was not, published until February 1817.] I would to heaven, my dear sir, that the opinions of Southey, Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Mr. Frere, and of men like these in learning and genius, concerning my comparative claims to be a man of letters, were to be received as the criterion, instead of the wretched, and in deed and in truth mystical jargon of the Examiner and Edinburgh Review.

Mr. Randall will be so good as to repay you the £50, and I understand from Mr. Gillman that you are willing to receive this as a settlement respecting the "Zapolya." The corrections and additions to the two first books of the "Christabel" may become of more value to you when the work is finished, as I trust it will be in the course of the spring, than they are at present. And let it not be forgotten, that while I had the utmost malignity of personal enmity to cry down the work, with the exception of Lord Byron, there was not one of the many who had so many years together spoken so warmly in its praise who gave it the least positive furtherance after its publication. It was openly asserted that the Quarterly Review did not wish to attack it, but was ashamed to say a word in its favor. Thank God! these things pass from me like drops from a duck's back, except as far as they take the bread out of my mouth; and this I can avoid by consenting to publish only for the present times whatever I may write. You will be so kind as to acknowledge the receipt of the £50 in such manner as to make all matters as clear between us as possible; for, though you, I am sure, could not have intended to injure my character, yet the misconceptions, and perhaps misrepresentations, of your words have had that tendency. By a letter from R. Southey I find that he will be in town on the 17th. The article in Tuesday's Courier was by me, and two other articles on Apostacy and Renegadoism, which will appear this week.

Believe me, with respect, your obliged,

S.T. COLERIDGE.

The following letter completes Coleridge's correspondence with Murray on this subject:

Mr. Coleridge to John Murray.

[Highgate], March 29, 1817.

Dear Sir,

From not referring to the paper dictated by yourself, and signed by me in your presence, you have wronged yourself in the receipt you have been so good as to send me, and on which I have therefore written as follows—"A mistake; I am still indebted to Mr. Murray £20 legally (which I shall pay the moment it is in my power), and £30 from whatever sum I may receive from the 'Christabel' when it is finished. Should Mr. Murray decline its publication, I conceive myself bound in honor to repay." I strive in vain to discover any single act or expression of my own, or for which I could be directly or indirectly responsible as a moral being, that would account for the change in your mode of thinking respecting me. But with every due acknowledgment of the kindness and courtesy that I received from you on my first coming to town,

I remain, dear Sir, your obliged, S.T. COLERIDGE.

Leigh Hunt was another of Murray's correspondents. When the Quarterly was started, Hunt, in his Autography, says that "he had been invited, nay pressed by the publisher, to write in the new Review, which surprised me, considering its politics and the great difference of my own." Hunt adds that he had no doubt that the invitation had been made at the instance of Gifford himself. Murray had a high opinion of Hunt as a critic, but not as a politician. Writing to Walter Scott in 1810 he said:

John Murray to Mr. Scott,

"Have you got or seen Hunt's critical essays, prefixed to a few novels that he edited. Lest you should not, I send them. Hunt is most vilely wrongheaded in politics, and has thereby been turned away from the path of elegant criticism, which might have led him to eminence and respectability."

Hunt was then, with his brother, joint editor of the Examiner, and preferred writing for the newspaper to contributing articles to the Quarterly.

On Leigh Hunt's release from Horsemonger Lane Gaol, where he had been imprisoned for his libel on the Prince Regent, he proceeded, on the strength of his reputation, to compose the "Story of Rimini," the publication of which gave the author a place among the poets of the day. He sent a portion of the manuscript to Mr. Murray before the poem was finished, saying that it would amount to about 1,400 lines. Hunt then proceeded (December 18, 1815) to mention the terms which he proposed to be paid for his work when finished. "Booksellers," he said, "tell me that I ought not to ask less than £450 (which is a sum I happen to want just now); and my friends, not in the trade, say I ought not to ask less than £500, with such a trifling acknowledgment upon the various editions after the second and third, as shall enable me to say that I am still profiting by it."

Mr. Murray sent his reply to Hunt through their common friend, Lord
Byron:

John Murray to Lord Byron.

December 27, 1815.

"I wish your lordship to do me the favour to look at and to consider with your usual kindness the accompanying note to Mr. Leigh Hunt respecting his poem, for which he requests £450. This would presuppose a sale of, at least, 10,000 copies. Now, if I may trust to my own experience in these matters, I am by no means certain that the sale would do more than repay the expenses of paper and print. But the poem is peculiar, and may be more successful than I imagine, in which event the proposition which I have made to the author will secure to him all the advantages of such a result, I trust that you will see in this an anxious desire to serve Mr. Hunt, although as a mere matter of business I cannot avail myself of his offer. I would have preferred calling upon you today were I not confined by a temporary indisposition; but I think you will not be displeased at a determination founded upon the best judgment I can form of my own business. I am really uneasy at your feelings in this affair, but I think I may venture to assume that you know me sufficiently well to allow me to trust my decision entirely to your usual kindness."

John Murray to Mr. Leigh Hunt.

December 27, 1815.

"I have now read the MS. poem, which you confided to me, with particular attention, and find that it differs so much from any that I have published that I am fearful of venturing upon the extensive speculation to which your estimate would carry it. I therefore wish that you would propose its publication and purchase to such houses as Cadell, Longman, Baldwin, Mawman, etc., who are capable of becoming and likely to become purchasers, and then, should you not have found any arrangement to your mind, I would undertake to print an edition of 500 or 750 copies as a trial at my own risk, and give you one half of the profits. After this edition the copyright shall be entirely your own property. By this arrangement, in case the work turn out a prize, as it may do, I mean that you should have every advantage of its success, for its popularity once ascertained, I am sure you will find no difficulty in procuring purchasers, even if you should be suspicious of my liberality from this specimen of fearfulness in the first instance. I shall be most happy to assist you with any advice which my experience in these matters may render serviceable to you."

Leigh Hunt at once accepted the offer.

After the poem was printed and published, being pressed for money, he wished to sell the copyright. After a recitation of his pecuniary troubles, Hunt concluded a lengthy letter as follows:

"What I wanted to ask you then is simply this—whether, in the first instance, you think well enough of the "Story of Rimini" to make you bargain with me for the copyright at once; or, in the second instance, whether, if you would rather wait a little, as I myself would do, I confess, if it were convenient, you have still enough hopes of the work, and enough reliance on myself personally, to advance me £450 on security, to be repaid in case you do not conclude the bargain, or merged in the payment of the poem in case you do."

Mr. Murray's reply was not satisfactory, as will be observed from the following letter of Leigh Hunt:

Mr. Leigh Hunt to John Murray,

April 12, 1816.

Dear Sir,

I just write to say something which I had omitted in my last, and to add a word or two on the subject of an expression in your answer to it. I mean the phrase "plan of assistance." I do not suppose that you had the slightest intention of mortifying me by that phrase; but I should wish to impress upon you, that I did not consider my application to you as coming in the shape of what is ordinarily termed an application for assistance. Circumstances have certainly compelled me latterly to make requests, and resort to expedients, which, however proper in themselves, I would not willingly have been acquainted with; but I have very good prospects before me, and you are mistaken (I beg you to read this in the best and most friendly tone you can present to yourself) if you have at all apprehended that I should be in the habit of applying to you for assistance, or for anything whatsoever, for which I did not conceive the work in question to be more than a security.

I can only say, with regard to yourself, that I am quite contented and ought to be so, as long as you are sincere with me, and treat me in the same gentlemanly tone.

Very sincerely yours,

LEIGH HUNT.

This negotiation was ultimately brought to a conclusion by Mr. Hunt, at Mr. Murray's suggestion, disposing of the copyright of "Rimini" to another publisher.