Printer-friendly versionSend by email
Quarterly Review Archive

Quarterly Review
VOLUME 5, NUMBER 9 (February 1811)


NOTES

  • This Number was published 10 April 1811 [Devon MS. 1149M (ff.87, 88); BL MS. 28099 (f.95); NLS MS. 3880 (f.91); Murray MS., Cash Book 1810-11, p. 147]

  • Murray printed 6000 for this Number [Devon MS. 1149M (f.82); Murray MS., 1803-23 Letter Book, JM to WG, 25 Oct. 1811]

  • This Number cost Murray £220.15.6 for articles and £52 for the editor

  • Gifford was paid a bonus of £23 for this issue (£75 instead of his usual £52), perhaps for his contribution to article 10 (#139)

  • Printer: C. Rowarth, Bell-yard, Temple-bar, London

  • Booksellers (listed on the title page): Hatchard, Piccadilly; Richardson, Cornhill; Parker, Oxford; Deighton, Cambridge; William Blackwood, Edinburgh; M. N. Mahon, Dublin

  • Murray MS.: Quarterly Review Debit Register, p.35. This page, that supplied information about Number 9, has been destroyed, perhaps because someone had entered information that identified the articles' authors

  • Items for 1811 from Jack Lynch's literary resources page, slightly modified and with additions:

    • In the summer of 1811 George III declared insane by Parliament. George, Prince of Wales (later George IV), is installed as Regent (to 1820)
    • Luddite anti-factory riots break out in the English Midlands—a symptom of growing economic hardship and working-class opposition to industrial labor (sporadically March 1811 to early 1813)
    • March to May, Wellington and Beresford gain successes in the Peninsula. Wellington's victories, and looming war with Russia, force Napoleon to partially withdraw from Spain.
    • Naval clashes and the failure to resolve the Atlantic trade embargo presage conflict between Britain and the United States.
    • Importation of slaves into India prohibited.
    • John Keble elected fellow Oriel College; Robert Raikes of Gloucester founds Sunday schools.
    • Shelley and Hogg are sent down from Oxford after the publication of their pamphlet The Necessity of Atheism. Edward Copleston, an important writer for the Quarterly Review, plays a central role in Shelley's expulsion.
    • Austen publishes Sense and Sensibility
    • Thomas M'Crie publishes The Life of Knox (see QR #254)
    • Charles Bell publishes Anatomy of the Brain, distinguishing sensory from motor nerves.
    • David Ricardo publishes On the High Price of Bullion (see QR #140).
    • Thackeray born this year.

     

  • Important or otherwise interesting articles in this Number include: #130, 131, 136, 137, 140

  • Number of definite attributions for this issue: 8

  • Number of probable or possible attributions for this issue: 3

CONTENTS, IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTORS, AND HISTORICAL NOTES


130 Article 1. Clavier, Histoire des premiers Temps de la Grèce, depuis Inachus jusqu'a à la Chute des Pisistratides; pour servir d'Introduction à tous les Ouvrages qui ont paru à ce Suject: avec des Tableaux généalogiques des principales Familles de la Grèce, 1-40. Author: George D'Oyly, possibly.

Running Title: Clavier—Histoire des premiers Temps de la Grèce.

Notes: In the absence of guidance from JM III's Register, Shine does not suggest an author for this article. Shine quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, [Feb. 1811]: 'I send you Clavier which I hope the printer will be careful of, as it is a presentation copy.'

The following information and evidence is published here for the first time. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: Hale's Chronology (discussed in the article on pp.16-17, 16n) was sent to 'Rev. Geo. Doyley' on 5 Dec. 1809. Devon MS. 1149M (f.83), WG to Edward Copleston, 26 Feb. 1811: 'I have in this No. an article on Clavier's Ancient Greece ... which I think will delight you by its learning and talent. ... [and] will oblige me to postpone Falconer [#141] to our next [Number].....' The topic of the article, a defence of orthodox Christianity falls within D'Oyly's province. In #130, the author often uses 'We must now,' and 'Now' as transitions; these are used frequently as well in articles known to be by D'Oyly, including #164 and #248.

JM II's marked QR: 'I never knew[.] J.M.'


131 Article 2. Southey, The Curse of Kehama, 40-61. Author: Walter Scott, with Grosvenor Bedford.

Running Title: Southey's Curse of Kehama.

Notes: In co-attributing the article to Scott and Bedford, Shine cites JM III's Register; Smiles I 189; Robinson I 39; Heber 1 35; Grierson II 409n; Lockhart III 110, IX 276; Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138; Douglas I 206; and Graham 41. Shine says to see also Smiles I 190; Grierson II 346, 409, 410, 415-16; Lockhart III 110; Southey 272; Warter II 210; Robberds II 339; and Forster 155. Shine quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [Jan.-Feb. 1811]: 'I have heard from Scott ... He has sent Kehama ...' Morgan MS., Robert Southey to E. Elliott Jr., 7 Feb. 1811: 'Scott tells me he has reviewed it [my poem] for the next Quarterly.' Warter II 307 [Southey's letter to Capt. Southey misdated 5 Dec. 1812]: 'Bedford has seen the review which Scott has written of it [Kehama], and which, from his account, though a very friendly one, is ... very superficial. He sees nothing but the naked story; the moral feeling which pervades it has escaped him. I do not know whether Bedford will be able to get a paragraph interpolated touching upon this, and showing that there is some difference between a work of high imagination and a story of mere amusement.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [Feb. 1811]: '[I am sending] some more of Scott—but I must make a few additions to its last pages, which I am now doing.' Shine says to see 'QR. V, No. 9, p.55 and 56, for three paragraphs on the relation of high poetic imagination and moral virtue: possibly Bedford's interpolation.'

The following evidence is published here for the first time. The article was originally intended for Number 8, but Scott was slow to finish it. WG deflected Grosvenor Bedford's request to review Southey's Kehama by showing him Scott's review. Bedford did not approve as it emphasized narrative, not the poem's morality. Bedford told Southey that despite his having been allowed to make some changes, the article still would not do and should be re-written. Pages 55-56 discuss the poem's imagination and morality and may be Bedford's interpolation.

NLS MS. 3879 (f.262), WG to Walter Scott, 22 Nov. 1810, suggests that Scott should review 'Kehama, [a] most strange thing of Southey's, which in your hands might do wonders, as it might lead to a view of Southey's poetical excellencies & defects—and he would not take anything wrong from you.' BL MS. 28099 (f.87), WG to George Ellis, 21 Dec. 1810: 'Scott has just sent me an article on a strange poem of Southey's called Kehama—It is hastily written, but he hurried it forward in the friendly expectation that it was wanted for the present No. Had it been so, we should have given the review before the work itself had made its appearance, which would have been a little queer. I shall now send it back to him for a little of the labour ....' NLS MS. 3879 (f.289), WG to Scott, 29 Dec. 1810: 'A thousand and a thousand thanks to you for the Kehama: It came too late [for inclusion in issue Number 8]; but, to do away both with your regret and mine it would not have found a place in this No. had it come a month sooner; for by some accident or other the book itself had not arrived here, when it [Scott's review] reached me, and we shall have published the critique before the critquee—I have returned it to you as you desired, but you must not keep it beyond a fortnight ....'

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #553, Feb. 1811, by Francis Jeffrey.

JM III's Register: attribution to Scott, with the following note: 'In Drawing Room vols this art is attributed to Grosvenor Bedford.' [Quarterly Review Archive editor's note: JM III appears to refer to a set of the QR other than JM II's marked run as there is no notation in JM II's copy preserved at John Murray's and JM III in his register usually refers more directly to JM II's marked run.]


132 Article 3. Wilson, Brief Remarks on the Character and Composition of the Russian Army, and a Sketch of the Campaigns in Poland in the Years 1806 and 1807, 62-84. Author: John William Ward, Lord Dudley, possibly.

Running Title: Sir Robert Wilson—Campaigns in Poland.

Notes: In querying its attribution to Reginald Heber, Shine cites JM III's Register. Shine also quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM [?1810-11]: 'I have got a person for Sir R Wilson—a good one.'

The following evidence was first published in VPR 28. According to WG, the article's author was a young M.P., an acquaintance or associate of John Barrow. The author is therefore not, despite JM III, either of the Hebers, Richard or Reginald. The two parliamentarians that most closely fit the description are Lord Dudley and John Wilson Croker. The article is certainly not by Croker; it does not appear in any of Croker's holograph lists of his articles preserved in the Clements Library, Ann Arbor, and it is not collected in the bound volumes of Croker's articles preserved at the Cambridge University Library. JM suspected that this article and #134 were by the same person (Dudley); WG did not agree, but told him to keep mum in any case. JM in his marked QR states that he never knew the author but that Croker sent it. He conjectured that the author was a Lord Reppor, but there is no M.P. with that name. Further evidence for Dudley is in JM having sent the book reviewed to Richard Heber and to Reginald Heber. Dudley, who was thirty years old in 1811, first entered parliament in 1803 and was a friend of the Hebers. If it is Dudley's work, it is his first contribution to the QR.

Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the book reviewed was sent to 'R[ichard]. Heber' on 18 Dec. 1810 and to 'Revd. R. Heber, Hodnet' on 19 Dec. 1810. BL MS. 28099 (ff.89-90), WG to George Ellis, [31 Dec. 1810]: '... lest you should already have hit upon Sir R. Wilson ... I have a review of him in hand. I know not the writer, but am told he is ... a young man, but in parliament. The offer of his assistance came thro' Barrow.' Cf. evidence for #146: Murray MS., WG to JM, [9 May 1811]: 'Tarleton ... comes from Mr B's friend.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 2 Jan. 1811: 'Be careful when you write to our friend this time [i.e., Edward Copleston or Richard Heber?] & do not even think what you suspect, but what I do not, that the two Articles are by the same person [#132 and #134?]. Let us multiply our friends, and above all affect as much ignorance as possible about them. I am sure that will be best.' Both #132 and #134 advise against suing for peace with France. BL MS. 28099 (ff.91-92), WG to Ellis, 2 Feb. 1811: 'That on Sir Robt Wilson, which has just reached me, will require much pain to put it into a readable form .... It appears to be by a young man, who hates the duty of revision.' See also evidence at #134. Cf. evidence for #146: Devon MS. 1149M (f.88), WG to Edward Copleston, 13 Apr. 1811: 'There is, I am told, a very foolish speech of a very foolish fellow, Gen. Tarleton ... but perhaps it is not worth our friend's [i.e., Lord Dudley's] notice—yet it might furnish something on Portugal.'

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #564, May 1811, by Henry Brougham.

[Bookseller's note: 'Account of the Russian Army in Poland at this time and one of the few works in English on the subject. Wilson was a British mercenary who served as a cavalry commander in the Russian Army.']

JM II's marked QR: 'Never knew[,] Croker-sent it[.] I believe Ld. Reppor.'

JM III's Register: [in pencil] '? Heber'.


133 Article 4. Whitaker, De Motu per Britanniam Civico. Annis MDCCXLV et MDCCXLVI, 84-100. Author: Edward Copleston, with John Ireland.

Running Title: Dr.Whitaker—De Motu per Brit. Civico.

Notes: In attributing the article to Copleston, Shine cites JM III's Register; Nichols xxiii n; Copleston 347; the article on Copleston in the DNB; and says to see also Copleston 40. Shine also quotes from the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [misdated May? 1811; numbered 119]: 'Coplestone came today and will be ready at any time—Part of Aeschylus is come from Cambridge also today ... P.S. Do not mention Copleston's name.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [1811]: 'Dr I[reland] <sent> last night for the last leaf of Dealtry [#144] & De Motu [#133] with a promise to send back both this morning. They are not come. [The following sentence is not quoted in Shine.] I told you that Dr I would positively reach me on Wednesday.'

The following evidence is published here for the first time. WG asked Copleston to soften criticism in the article of Thomas Dunham Whitaker, a valuable contributor to the journal. Copleston bristled at the request.

Devon MS. 1149M (f.79), WG to Edward Copleston, 18 Oct. 1810, accepts his proposal for an article 'though not interesting in itself; but it may be made so by adjuncts ....' Devon MS. 1149M (f.80), WG to Copleston, 9 Jan. 1811, thanks him for his article on Whitaker. Devon MS. 1149M (f.81), WG to Copleston, 11 Feb. 1811, hopes Copleston can finish his article within a fortnight and asks him to limit its length. Devon MS. 1149 (f.83), WG to Copleston, 26 Feb. 1811: 'Whitaker I presume, we shall have this week.' Devon 1149M (f.84), WG to Copleston, 9 Mar. 1811: 'Whitaker is a good friend of ours, & I really owe him some thanks for his Review of the man with 'the leaden mace' [Chalmers? #118; he says he lives next door to him; the reference, 'leaden mace,' is probably to Julius Caesar IV. iii, but the phrase is axiomatic for inducing dullness or sleep] .... if, therefore ... any word can be softened ... it may be done.' Devon MS. 1149 (f.85), WG to Copleston, 11 Mar. 1811, assures him he did not ask for an abridgement of 'Whitaker.' The blunt criticisms of Whitaker on the article's final two pages indicate that Copleston won his battle with WG.

JM II's marked QR: 'Coppleston'. [sic.]

JM III's Register: note to Number 9: 'Coplestone wrote an art in this No. See W G's letter no. 119.'


134 Article 5. Roscoe, Brief Observations on the Address to his Majesty, proposed by Earl Grey, in the House of Lords, 13th June, 100-10. Author: John William Ward, Lord Dudley, with an excision by George Canning.

Running Title: Roscoe's Observations on Lord Grey's Address.

Notes: In attributing the article to Dudley, Shine cites only JM III's Register and notes its citation of JM II's marked QR.

The following evidence is published here for the first time. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the book reviewed was sent to 'Clement Park' (Dudley's residence) on 11 Sept. 1810. Devon MS. 1149M (ff.79, 80), WG to Edward Copleston, 18 Oct. 1810, and 9 Jan. 1811: WG initially declined this article because George Ellis had claimed the subject, but after Ellis withdrew his claim WG gladly accepted Dudley's contribution (see BL MS. 28099, ff.89-90). Devon MS. 1149 (f.83), WG to Copleston, 26 Feb. 1811: 'I shewed Canning the Article on Roscoe, with which he was greatly pleased: by his advice I made a trifling omission, which even the author will scarcely discover—But what do you think of [Richard] Heber, the lamb, the sucking dove, the "tender-hearted" Heber! He wrote to me ... to deprecate the wrath of the author, & to beg some mitigation of the censor passed on his (Roscoe's) ponderous Quartos.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.87), WG to Copleston, 18 Mar. 1811, says Roscoe is printed off without alteration, 'though Heber wished much to mitigate the criticism of the philosopher's historical labours.' Murray MS., WG to JM, n.d., says he finds the MS. article on Roscoe to be 'too forensic' and calls for the abridgment of 'legal phrases and terms' that 'unconsciously' crept in. Murray MS., WG to JM, 2 Jan. 1811: 'Be careful when you write to our friend this time & do not even think what you suspect, but what I do not, that the two Articles are by the same person [#132 and 134?]. Let us multiply our friends, and above all affect as much ignorance as possible about them. I am sure that will be best.'

[Bookseller's note: 'The author propounds the view "that it is not on the power of this country to control the affairs, and prescribe the destiny of Europe; and that it is only to a cessation of hostilities and a season of repose, that we are now to look for effectual relief."']

JM II's marked QR: 'Ld Dudley'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Dudley, citing JM II's marked QR, but without further evidence.


135 Article 6. Hoare, The History of Ancient Wiltshire, 111-20. Author: Thomas Dunham Whitaker.

Running Title: Sir R. Colt Hoare's Ancient Wiltshire.

Notes: In attributing the article to Whitaker, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes its citation of JM II's QR. Shine also cites Nichols xxix and quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Mar. 1811]: 'I have not Mr Whitaker's letter—if it does not come by tomorrow's post, it must go as it is.'

The following evidence is published here for the first time. Murray MS., Book Loans Register: the book reviewed was sent to 'Thos Williams' on 15 Apr. 1809 and to 'Dr Whitaker' on 10 Jan. 1811.

[Bookseller's note: 'A work which was an important step towards objective methods in field archaeology and established Colt Hoare's reputation as an archaeologist. Sir Richard Colt Hoare (1758-1838) was the grandson of Henry Hoare, the banker, who had laid out the gardens at Stourhead. At the beginning Colt Hoare was only called upon to finance Cunnington's enterprise of recording all that could be discovered about the inhabitants of Wiltshire from prehistoric to Roman times. In the course of the preparations though he acquired a rapidly growing interest and knowledge, became a collaborator, and was soon described by a fellow enthusiast as "barrow mad". Colt Hoare wrote the work with the support of William Cunnington who had assembled much of the archeological information on excavation sites but died in 1810. Stephen and John Parker did the actual excavation work, while Philip Crocker made all the surveys and executed the detailed drawings for the plates. For a full account of Colt Hoare's life and archaeological pursuits, see K. Woodbridge, Landscape and Antiquity, Oxford, 1970.']

JM II's marked QR: 'Rev Dr Whittaker'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Whitaker, citing JM II's marked QR, but without further evidence.


136 Article 7. Sinclair, Remarks on a Pamphlet entitled 'The Question, &c.', 120-38. Author: George Ellis, with George Canning, Charles Ellis, and John Hookham Frere.

Running Title: Sir John Sinclair's Remarks, &c.

Notes: In co-attributing the article to Ellis and Canning, Shine cites JM III's Register; Lockhart II 379-81, 381n; Gentleman's Magazine XXI 138; Marriot 146; and says to see also DNB III 875. Shine also cites the following letters. Murray MS., WG to JM, [18 Mar. 1811]: 'Mr C[anning] will be with me on Wednesday ... when Sir J will be finally discussed.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [25 Mar. 1811]: 'Mr C wishes ... to make a few trifling changes in Sir John ....'

The following evidence and discussion is published here for the first time. The subject of the article is the famous 1810 Bullion Report. JM II was apt to exaggerate Canning's role as a writer for his journal. The manuscript evidence demonstrates that Canning's input was limited to reading the article in proof and commenting upon it to WG. WG worried about the propriety of the concluding pages, as did Edward Copleston, and, to some extent Canning. The pages were retained on the advice of Charles Ellis and John Hookham Frere. Frere added a few lines.

NLS MS. 3879 (f.262), WG to Walter Scott, 22 Nov. 1810: 'I hope you have no objection to a little merriment at the expense of Sir J. Sinclair; if so, pray make up your mind to it—it will be like Preston's Cambyses, "an excellent tragedy mix'd full of pleasant mirth"—But mum.' [Thomas Preston (1537-1598) A Lamentable Tragedy, Mixed full of Pleasant Mirth, Containing the Life of Cambyses, King of Persia... (1561)] Devon MS. 1149M (f.88), WG to Edward Copleston, 13 Apr. 1811: 'I have some doubts myself about the concluding pages of Sir John. Unfortunately the writer was out of the way, & his cousin Charles [Ellis] seemed to wish to retain it. Canning also hesitated; but Frere preferred its insertion—some of it, is his own. But whatever may be thought of this part, surely the neatness, elegance, & beauty of the rest [of] the article were never surpassed.' BL MS. 28099 (ff.95-96), WG to George Ellis, 19 April 1811: 'I have £11.17.0 for your banker.' Murray MS., Paid Contributors list for Number 9: 'VII Sinclair ... 11 - 17 - '

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #547, Feb. 1811, by T. R. Malthus.

JM II's marked QR: 'G. Ellis / Canning'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Ellis and Canning, but without evidence.


137 Article 8. Petrie, A Statement of Facts delivered to Lord Minto, Governor General of India, &c. on his late arrival at Madras; A Reply to the Publication of William Petrie, Esq. regarding the late Transactions at Madras; An accurate and authentic Narrative of the Origin and Progress of the Dissentions at the Presidency of Madras, founded on Original Papers and Correspondence; A Letter from an Officer at Madras to a Friend formerly in that Service, now in England: exhibiting the Rise, Progress, and actual State of the late unfortunate Insurrection in the Indian Army; An Account of the Origin, Progress, and Consequences of the late Discontents of the Army of the Madras Establishment; A Postscript to the Account, &c. &c. By the Author of the Four leading Letters of the original Work. With Remarks and an Appendix, containing a variety of Interesting Documents never before published; Papers relating to East India Affairs (Madras Army.) Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25th May, 1810, 138-203. Author: Robert Grant, with George Canning and William Gifford, possibly with John Wilson Croker, and probably with information from Lord Teignmouth and the elder Charles Grant.

Running Title: India.—Disturbances at Madras.

Notes: In attributing the article to Grant, Shine cites JM III's Register and notes its citation of JM II's marked QR.. Shine also quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, [Oct.-Nov. 1810]: 'I have recd a letter from Romney to say that the whole of India will be with me on Wednesday, & part of it before—keep this secret, I mean the post mark.'

The following evidence is published here for the first time. Because his father, Charles Grant, was a powerful official in the East India Company, Robert Grant kept his participation in the journal the deepest secret, refusing to identify himself even to JM or WG. He forwarded drafts of this article to WG via Lord Teignmouth and Richard and Reginald Heber. Certain comments by Lord Teignmouth led WG to suspect that the author was Robert Grant's father. As WG's letter to Edward Copleston quoted below demonstrates, the elder Grant undoubtedly participated in the development of the article (as he had in Robert Grant's contributions to the Edinburgh Review on the subject of India). Robert Grant requested that WG cut the article down. WG did so and added material of his own. Canning read and approved it.

Murray MS., WG to JM, [1811]: 'I have just received the first 6 pages of India—with which I am delighted.' [This note is crossed out and on the other side of the page a new letter in WG's hand begins:] 'I have, not without some sort of doubt & diffidence, gone over this part, as you desired—but I should wish to shew the rest to M. C[anning]—. What I have now seen is truly admirable & commanding. The author is desirous that it should be much abridged, but if what remains be like this I know not how I shall do it. Still I fear it will be long. ... Mind the running title. I think what I have written is as good as any—for Madras is the point. ... Let the corrections be carefully made.' Murray MS., WG to JM, 1 Mar. 1811: 'With this you will receive 5 sheets more of India[;] 3 remain. Lord T[eignmouth] called me to day, but as Mr. C[anning]. was with me, I did not see him—but he left the inclosed letter for me & you may believe what he says—Let me have his letter again. If we are to have the subject-to be sure it is proper to have a masterly one.' Murray MS, WG to JM, May 1811: 'The Review has gone to the Admiralty, as Mr C. [Canning, or probably Croker] wished to look at it.' Devon MS. 1149M (no folio number), WG to Edward Copleston, 11 Apr. 1811: 'Pray admire our Article on India. I have not often seen such a performance. It is anonymous: but Lord Teignmouth, from whom I received it, tells me that the person who wrote it, has had recourse to every original document which India or England could furnish.'

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #527, Aug. 1810, by Sydney Smith.

JM II's marked QR: 'Robert Grant'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Grant, and cites JM II's marked QR, but without additional evidence.


138 Article 9. ΑΙΣΧΥΑΟΥ ΠΡΟMΗΘΕΥΣ ΔΕMΩΤΗΣ. Æschyli Prometheus Vinctus. Ad fidem Manuscriptorum emendavit. Notas et Glossarium adjecit, Carolus Jacobus Blomfield, A.B. Collegii, SS. Trinitatis apud Cantabrigienses Socius. Cantabrigiæ, Typis ac Sumptibus Academicis excudit J. Smith MDCCCX, 203-29. Author: James Henry Monk.

Running Title: Blomfield—Æsch. Prometheus Vinctus.

Notes: In attributing the article to Monk, Shine cites JM III's Register. Shine also quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, [May 1810; dated in error May 1811]: 'Part of Aeschylus is come form Cambridge also today—very good ....' [Quarterly Review Archive editor's note: it is only by a strange alchemy that Shine managed to correctly attribute the article to Monk. How Shine hit upon the correct attribution is a mystery, for Shine introduces no evidence to demonstrate that Monk wrote the article and, moreover, Shine confuses the Register notes for #138 as applying to #139 and inexplicably makes no mention of JM III's mistaken attribution of this article to Peter Elmsley.]

Some of the following evidence was first published in VPR 24, some is published here for the first time. George D'Oyly introduced the author of this article to WG. Elmsley's letter, quoted below, demonstrates that he was not the author of this article and that therefore JM II's notation in his marked QR was a misremembrance. The article answered WI #549 in the Edinburgh Review. JM III's Register attributes the article to Peter Elmsley and cites JM II's marked QR.

Wellcome MS., 68126, WG to George D'Oyly, 9 Nov. 1810, thanks Monk through D'Oyly for his offer of an article; is anxious that 'no undue particularity will appear' in it; promises secrecy. Devon MS. 1149M (f.83), WG to Edward Copleston, 26 Feb. 1811: 'I have for the next a Review of [Blomfield] somewhat elaborate, but the article in the last Edin[burgh Review]. has forced us to exert ourselves a little.' Devon MS. 1149M (f.90), WG to Copleston, 29 Apr. 1811: 'The author of the critique on Blomfield is known to me but indirectly. I have every reason to believe him to be the Greek Professor of Cambridge [Monk was Regius Professor of Greek, Cambridge]. The communication of the article was made to me by D'Oyly .... He is desirous of being concealed ....' Murray MS., G. L. Monk to JM III, 15 Jan. 1858, says he has a holograph WG letter that makes it clear this article is by his father, James Henry Monk, and that it was his first contribution. BL MS. 34583 (f.334), Peter Elmsley to Samuel Butler, 17 Aug. 1811: 'Do you happen to know the name of the author of the Review of Blomfield's Prometheus in the Quarterly Review. He is evidently a Cantabrigian, a friend to Blomfield, a fierce enemy to you, rather hostile to me than otherwise, and, above all, initiated in the higher mysteries of Porsoniasm.'

C. J. Blomfield reviewed Butler's edition of Aeschylus in ER #597, Feb. 1812.

JM II's marked QR: 'Elmsley'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Elmsley citing JM II's marked QR, but without further evidence.


139 Article 10. Grant, History of Mauritius and the neighbouring Islands, &c. &c., 229-41. Authors: John Barrow and William Gifford.

Running Title: Grant's History of Mauritius, &c. [Textual note: on page 241 running title changes to Grant's History of Mauritius.]

Notes: In attributing the article to Peter Elmsley, Shine cites, in error, JM III's Register and its citation of JM II's marked QR. The Shine volume confuses the notes in JM III's Register that apply to #138 as applying to #139. Shine also cites manuscript evidence at #140 that probably applies instead to #139.

The following evidence was first published in VPR 24. JM III's Register attributes the article to John Barrow and cites JM II's marked QR. BL MS. 28099 (f.95), WG to George Ellis, 15 Apr. 1811: 'Barrow furnished the heads of the 10th Art. which I worked up.' Murray MS., WG to JM, [n.d., ?early 1811]: 'I sent the remdr of Barrows slight art.' The article speaks 'from authority' on naval matters (Barrow was Second Secretary to the Admiralty). The article expresses an interest in the possible connection of the Niger and Nile rivers, a thesis oft repeated by Barrow. The article's author refers back to #82 (specific reference to pp.200-1), which is also by Barrow, and, as in that article, claims personal communication with Dr. Cowan. Article #140 is referred to at #178, which is also by Barrow. In his QR articles, it was Barrow's signature practice to refer to his own works. Page 262, the following 'ERRATUM.' appears: 'In some Copies a quotation appears at page 61, of which the commencement had already been given at page 52.'

[Bookseller's note: 'The standard early work on Mauritius, giving a complete overview of the country and its surrounding islands. Grant's work is important in many ways. The text is derived primarily from the letters and papers of the author's father, Baron Grant, who spent two decades on the island. The nature of its contents, correspondence and papers, provides an added dimension to the text. They reflect the daily attitudes of life on the island, which are otherwise largely unrecorded. Grant provides a detailed account of the island's geography, flora, and fauna. He describes the manner and habits of the indigenous population and includes astronomical observations and guides to navigation. Lowndes (third edition), p.927.']

JM II's marked QR: 'Barrow'.

JM III's Register: attribution to Barrow, but without evidence.


140 Article 11. Chalmers, —Hill, —Bosanquet, —Ricardo, —Atkinson, —E. Thornton, —Rutherford, —Lyne, —Cock, —Coutts, —Trotter, —Fonblanque, —Eliot, —Smith, —Wilson, —Hoare, —Maryatt —on the Report of the Bullion Committee, 242-62. Author: George Ellis, probably with George Canning and John Barrow.

Running Title: Tracts on the Report of the Bullion Committee.

Notes: In co-attributing the article to John Barrow and George Canning, Shine cites JM III's Register and its citation of JM II's marked QR. Shine quotes from Murray MS. WG to JM, [undated. Probably early 1811]: 'I sent the remdr of Barrows slight art.' [Quarterly Review Archive editor's note: that letter more likely applies instead to #139.] Shine also quotes from Murray MS., WG to JM, [Feb. 1811, numbered 111]: 'I heard today ... about the Bullion—I have all the sheets this inst[ant] returned from Mr. C[anning]. ...' In suggesting Ellis and Canning as an alternative co-attribution, Shine cites QR CCX, 744: 'written in conjunction with [Canning's] friend Ellis, and inspired by others.'

The following discussion (and the qualification of Shine's citation of the Murray MS., WG to JM letter quoted above) was first published in VPR 28. In this period, Ellis and Canning produced a number of articles on the currency, #124, #129, and #136. Ellis did all or most of the writing with Canning supplying opinions and wisdom.

The subject of this article was reviewed in ER #547, Feb. 1811, by T. R. Malthus, and in ER #574, Aug. 1811, by T. R. Malthus.

JM II's marked QR: 'Barrow'.

JM III's Register: Barrow, citing JM II's marked QR, and adding '?revised by G. Canning See W G's letter No 111'.

Published @ RC

February 2005

Continent