He had never been married; but although he had no children, he had an exceeding love for them. When well, he delighted in giving juvenile parties, and rejoiced at seeing the children frisking about in the happiness of youth--a contrast which threw the misery of his own early life into strange relief. His domestic favourites were his dog and his cat, both of which he dearly loved. He was also most kind and generous to his domestic servants; and all who knew him well, sorrowfully lamented his death.
Many years after Gifford"s death, a venomous article upon him appeared in a London periodical. The chief point of this anonymous attack was contained in certain extracts from the writings of Sir W. Scott, Southey, and other eminent contemporaries of Mr. Gifford. Mr. R.W. Hay, one of the oldest contributors to the _Quarterly_, was at that time still living, and, in allusion to the article in question, he wrote to Mr. Murray"s son:
_Mr. R.W. Hay to Mr. Murray_.
_July 7, 1856_.
It is wholly worthless, excepting as it contains strictures of Sir W.
Scott, Southey, and John Wilson on the critical character of the late Wm. Gifford. I by no means subscribe to all that is said by these distinguished individuals on the subject, and I cannot help suspecting that the high station in literature which they occupied rendered them more than commonly sensitive to the corrections and erasures which were proposed by the editor. Sir Walter (great man as he was) was perfectly capable of writing so carelessly as to require correction, and both Southey and John Wilson might occasionally have brought forth opinions, on political and other matters, which were not in keeping with the general tone of the _Quarterly Review_. That poor Gifford was deformed in figure, feeble in health, unhappily for him there can be no denying, but that he had any pleasure in tormenting, as a.s.serted by some, that he indulged in needless criticism without any regard to the feelings of those who were under his lash, I am quite satisfied cannot justly be maintained. In my small dealings with the _Review_, I only found the editor most kind and considerate. His amendments and alterations I generally at once concurred in, and I especially remember in one of the early articles, that he diminished the number of Latin quotations very much to its advantage; that his heart was quite in the right place I have had perfect means of knowing from more than one circ.u.mstance, _e.g._, his anxiety for the welfare of his friend Hoppner the painter"s children was displayed in the variety of modes which he adopted to a.s.sist them, and when John Gait was sorely maltreated in the _Review_ in consequence of his having attributed to me, incorrectly, an article which occasioned his wrath and indignation, and afterwards was exposed to many embarra.s.sments in life, Gifford most kindly took up his cause, and did all he could to further the promotion of his family. That our poor friend should have been exposed throughout the most part of his life to the strong dislike of the greatest part of the community is not unnatural. As the _redacteur_ of the _Anti-Jacobin_, etc., he, in the latter part of the last century, drew upon himself the hostile attacks of all the modern philosophers of the age, and of all those who hailed with applause the dawn of liberty in the French Revolution; as editor of the _Quarterly Review_, he acquired in addition to the former hosts of enemies, the undisguised hatred of all the Whigs and Liberals, who were for making peace with Bonaparte, and for destroying the settled order of things in this country. In the present generation, when the feeling of national hatred against France has entirely subsided, and party feelings have so much gone by that no man can say to which party any public man belongs, it is impossible for anyone to comprehend the state of public feeling which prevailed during the great war of the Revolution, and for some years after its termination. Gifford was deeply imbued with all the sentiments on public matters which prevailed in his time, and, as some people have a hatred of a cat, and others of a toad, so our friend felt uneasy when a Frenchman was named; and buckled on his armour of criticism whenever a Liberal or even a Whig was brought under his notice; and although in the present day there appears to be a greater indulgence to crime amongst judges and juries, and perhaps a more lenient system of criticism is adopted by reviewers, I am not sure that any public advantage is gained by having Ticket of Leave men, who ought to be in New South Wales, let loose upon the English world by the unchecked appearance of a vast deal of spurious literature, which ought to have withered under the severe blasts of Criticism.
Believe yours very truly,
R.W. HAY.
CHAPTER XXIV
THE "REPRESENTATIVE"
Mr. Murray had for long been desirous of publishing a journal which should appear more frequently than once a quarter, more especially after the discontinuance of his interest in Blackwood"s magazine. In 1825 he conceived the more ambitious design of publishing a daily morning paper, a project now chiefly interesting from the fact that in this venture he had the a.s.sistance of the future Lord Beaconsfield. The intimacy which existed between the Murrays and D"Israelis had afforded Mr. Murray exceptional opportunities of forming an opinion of Benjamin"s character, and he saw with delight the rapidly developing capacities of his old friend"s son. Even in his eighteenth year Benjamin was consulted by Mr.
Murray as to the merits of a MS., and two years later he wrote a novel ent.i.tled "Aylmer Papillon," which did not see the light. He also edited a "History of Paul Jones, Admiral in the Russian Navy," written by Theophilus Smart, an American, and originally published in the United States.
Young Disraeli was already gifted with a power of influencing others, unusual in a man of his age. He was eloquent, persuasive, and ingenious, and even then, as in future years, when he became a leading figure in the political world, he had the power of drawing others over to the views which he entertained, however different they might be from their own. Looking merely to his literary career as a successful novel writer, his correspondence with Mr. Murray about his proposed work of "Aylmer Papillon" is not without interest.
_Mr. Benjamin Disraeli to John Murray_.
_May_, 1824.
MY DEAR SIR,
Your very kind letter induces me to trouble you with this most trivial of trifles. My plan has been in these few pages so to mix up any observations which I had to make on the present state of society with the bustle and hurry of a story, that my satire should never be protruded on my reader. If you will look at the last chapter but one, ent.i.tled "Lady Modeley"s," you will see what I mean better than I can express it. The first pages of that chapter I have written in the same manner as I would a common novel, but I have endeavoured to put in _action_ at the _end_, the present fashion of getting on in the world. I write no humbug about "candidly giving your opinion, etc., etc." You must be aware that you cannot do me a greater favour than refusing to publish it, if you think _it won"t do_; and who should be a better judge than yourself?
Believe me ever to be, my dear Sir,
Your most faithful and obliged,
B. DISRAELI. [Footnote: It will be observed that while the father maintained the older spelling of the name, the son invariably writes it thus.]
P.S.--The second and the last chapters are unfortunately mislaid, but they have no particular connection with the story. They are both very short, the first contains an adventure on the road, and the last Mr.
Papillon"s banishment under the Alien Act from a ministerial misconception of a metaphysical sonnet.
Thursday morn.: Excuse want of seal, as we"re doing a bit of summer to-day, and there is not a fire in the house.
FREDERICK PLACE, _May_ 25, 1824.
1/2 past 1 o"clock A.M.
MY DEAR SIR,
The travels, to which I alluded this morning, would not bind up with "Parry," since a moderate duodecimo would contain the adventures of a certain Mr. Aylmer Papillon in a _terra incognita_. I certainly should never have mentioned them had I been aware that you were so very much engaged, and I only allude to them once more that no confusion may arise from the half-explanations given this morning. You will oblige me by not mentioning this to anybody.
Believe me to be, my dear Sir,
Your very faithful and obliged Servant,
B. DISRAELI.
FREDERICK PLACE, _June_ 1824.
MY DEAR SIR,
Until I received your note this morning I had flattered myself that my indiscretion had been forgotten. It is to me a matter of great regret that, as appears by your letter, any more trouble should be given respecting this unfortunate MS., which will, most probably, be considered too crude a production for the public, and which, if it is even imagined to possess any interest, is certainly too late for this season, and will be obsolete in the next. I think, therefore, that the sooner it be put behind the fire the better, and as you have some small experience in burning MSS., [Footnote: Byron"s Memoirs had been burnt at Albemarle Street during the preceding month.] you will be perhaps so kind as to consign it to the flames. Once more apologising for all the trouble I have given you, I remain ever, my dear Sir,
Yours very faithfully,
B. DISRAELI.
Murray had a special regard for the remarkable young man, and by degrees had thoroughly taken him into his confidence; had related to him his experiences of men and affairs, and ere long began to consult him about a variety of schemes and projects. These long confidential communications led eventually to the suggestion of a much more ambitious and hazardous scheme, the establishment of a daily paper in the Conservative interest. Daring as this must appear, Murray was encouraged in it by the recollection of the success which had attended the foundation of the _Quarterly_, and believed, rashly, that his personal energy and resources, aided by the abilities displayed by his young counsellor, would lead to equal success. He evidently had too superficially weighed the enormous difficulties of this far greater undertaking, and the vast difference between the conduct of a _Quarterly Review_ and a daily newspaper.
Intent upon gaining a position in the world, Benjamin Disraeli saw a prospect of advancing his own interests-by obtaining the influential position of director of a Conservative daily paper, which he fully imagined was destined to equal the _Times_, and he succeeded in imbuing Murray with the like fallacious hopes.
The emanc.i.p.ation of the Colonies of Spain in South America in 1824-25 gave rise to much speculation in the money market in the expectation of developing the resources of that country, especially its mines. Shares, stocks, and loans were issued to an unlimited extent.
Mr. Benjamin Disraeli seems to have thrown himself into the vortex, for he became connected with at least one financial firm in the City, that of Messrs. Powles, and employed his abilities in writing several pamphlets on the subject. This led to his inducing Messrs. Powles to embark with him in the scheme of a daily paper. At length an arrangement was entered into, by which John Murray, J.D. Powles, and Benjamin Disraeli were to become the joint proprietors of the proposed new journal. The arrangement was as follows:
MEMORANDUM.
LONDON, _August_ 3, 1825.
The undersigned parties agree to establish a Morning Paper, the property in which is to be in the following proportions, viz.:
Mr. Murray.... One-half. Mr. Powles.... One-quarter. Mr. Disraeli....
One-quarter.
Each party contributing to the expense, capital, and risk, in those proportions.
The paper to be published by, and be under the management of Mr. Murray.
JOHN MURRAY.
J.D. POWLES.
B. DISRAELI.