LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE "QUARTERLY REVIEW" AND "MIL CLAD. STONE : A STUDY."
[To ntr Errros or rErs ”Sescrrroa."]
Sm,—In spite of extreme reluctance to enter into a controversy in which I am not directly concerned,I am compelled, by certain remarks in your editorial note to Mr. Jennings's letter, to request
you to publish the correspondence between us to which you there refer. The word " rebuff " would seem to involve a oharge of discourtesy against me ; but I hope you will allow me to disclaim most emphatically any intention or consciousness of want of courtesy in my reply to your letter. I am content to leave your readers to form their own opinion on the question, merely calling attention to two points :— 1. You write in your editorial note :—" We added [in our review] our own belief that Mr. Gladstone was in all probability the writer, simply because we supposed Mr. Jennings to be in possession of information of which he does not choose to explain the origin." The only reasonable interpretation of this insinua- tion is that Mr. Jennings had obtainedd, the information from some person connected with the Quarterly. Your review was published on February 12th; on January 24th you had my specific denial that any such information had been communicated to him.
2. You also write :—" Before we thought of reading the book, we addressed an inquiry to the publisher of the Quarterly, as we thought ourselves bound to do, as to the authorship and authenticity of the articles quoted ; but received no information, —only, indeed, a rebaff,—in reply," &c.
I will ask your readers to judge as to whether your letter contains any inquiry as to the authorship of the articles; or whether my reply contains "no information" on the questions you did ask.—I am, Sir, &a., Albemarle Street, February 22a1. JORN MURRAY, Juxa.
[corr.] Spectator Office, January 22nd, 1887.
MY DEAR Sin,—Your occasional letters to us may serve as my excuse for asking you whether Mr. Jennings, in his" Study" of Mr. Gladstone, just published by Blackwood, had authority from you or the present editor of the Quarterly to announce Mr. Gladstone's authorship of various articles in the Quarterly Review, and to use them freely as his ? Was there any editing of Mr. Gladstone's con. trilmtions at the time, and is it really certain that even when he wrote the chief part of an article, its language was all his own 7
And is it according to etiquette to announce such an authorship without the permission of the author P I do not like to review Mr. Jennings's work without knowing something on these points.—Believe me, my dear Sir, faithfully yours,
RICHARD H. Hcrrou (one of the Editors).
[PRIVATE.]
50 Albemarle Street, January 24th, 1887. MY DEAR SIE-1 have read your letter of Saturday's date to my father, and now write to inform you that, so far as we are concerned, Mr. Jennings has shown the utmost discretion with regard to the author- ship of the articles referred to in his work on Mr. Gladstone. He has neither asked nor obtained any information on the subject from us or from the present editor of the Quarterly Review. The authorship of the articles in hack numbers of the Quarterly Review is recorded in docu- ments which are under my care, and since the appearance of Mr. Jennings's work we have purposely refrained from referring to those documents, so that we do not know by whom the articles in question were written. I much regret that we are quite unable to answer your question as to the editing of the contents of the Quarterly so many years ago.—Believe me, my dear Sir, yours faithfully, JOHN MilaitAY, JEEP..
[We had not the remotest intention of attributing Mr. Jennings's information as to the authorship of these articles to Mr. Murray. And, indeed, careful readers of the Spectator well know that " insinuations " of any kind are not in our way. We were perfectly convinced by Mr. Murray's reply that he had afforded Mr. Jennings no information; but we did, and do suppose, that Mr. Jennings had the means of forming some judgment beyond the mere gossip of the day as to the authorship. Clearly, if it were not so, he would not have behaved with the great " discretion " which Mr. Murray oddly attributes to him in the matter. As to the word" rebuff," it did not, in our one of it, imply discourtesy, but simply a refusal to convey the in- formation desired ; and this Mr. Murray had, of course, a perfect right to refuse. We admit that the question literally put was answered, but the question virtually put was not,—very likely for good reasons—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
