# The English Historical Review/Volume 36/The Beginnings of the English Historical Review

Introduced by G. N. Clark, the article is an excerpt of a speech given by Reginald L. Poole in 1905.
Layout 2
The Beginnings of the English Historical Review
FIFTEEN years ago, on 15 December 1905, Mr. R. L. Poole was entertained at a dinner in the hall of Balliol College to celebrate the completion of twenty years of this Review. In a speech in reply to the principal toast, he described the origin of the Review and its history up to that time, and, now that his long and distinguished editorship has come to an end, he has consented to the publication of part of this speech. It has been thought best to omit the more intimate and personal passages, but, except for a small addition to one of the quotations, the account of the beginnings which here follows is otherwise the same that was then given. The sketch of the history after the publication of the first number has not been added, because it would now appear only as an incomplete fragment. In the course of the speech, Mr. Poole said: 'We have published eighty numbers of the Review. … Of these Mr. Creighton was editor of twenty-two, Mr. Gardiner of fourteen, Mr. Gardiner and I were jointly responsible for twenty-five; and I by myself can only take credit for seventeen.' Now the last figure would have to be raised to seventy-nine.
G. N. C.
As I began by saying, I want to speak not of myself but of the Review, for that is the real subject which we are celebrating, though it has to use me as a mouthpiece. I am going to ask you to listen while I tell you how the Review came into existence. And I take this opportunity of doing so, because although Mrs. Creighton in her admirable Life of our first Editor has told us a great deal about the early history of the Review after it was founded, what led to its foundation has never been fully related, though there are large materials for the history of ​a similar scheme, which never was actually carried out, to be found in the letters of John Richard Green.
The idea of establishing an Historical Review goes back a great number of years. In fact, it is at least thirty-nine years old, though our Review is only twenty. On 28 January 1867 J. R. Green wrote to Freeman from his vicarage at Stepney:
   Hunt is here. … Much of our chat turned on a scheme Hunt and I thought we had hit out together, but which (it seems) Bryce had anticipated—the starting of a purely Historical Review. He had consulted Macmillan, who believed it would certainly succeed, but recommended the form to be an annual volume like the Oxford Essays. This, however, is not Bryce's view; he would prefer a quarterly; for my own part I believe in a shilling monthly. … He had spoken to Stubbs, and Stubbs was warm in support. He thought of Stubbs as editor.
Nearly two years later we hear of the subject again in Green's letters. But now Mr. Macmillan was less sanguine.
   'The new organization of the North British, with its wonderfully good summary of the historical literature of the quarter, and the appearance of the Academy,' Green confessed, 'certainly cut into our original plan. … It is far too big a job to begin without clearly seeing one's way.'
Those were the days when the Academy was a paper written by scholars for scholars; and the North British Review was vigorously supported by Lord Acton, who contributed twenty-five reviews to the current number (October 1869) at the date of Green's letter. It is curious to think that a stumbling-block should have been unconsciously placed in the way of the original Historical Review by the man who was one of the foremost to promote the success of our Review sixteen years later. After an interval of more than two years, in April 1872, the Historical Review seemed to be really taking shape. Green hoped that Mr. Bryce would take the editorship, but there were differences of opinion as to the exact character which the Review should assume.
Then after the lapse of four years (15 June 1876) Green wrote a long and most interesting letter to Macmillan on the various schemes proposed, in which he declared his conviction that 'none of the projects which have as yet been suggested is likely to command a practical success'. I need not go into the particulars of these various proposals, whether the Review was to be strictly scientific; or part scientific, part popular; or again part political. But it is clear that Green was definitely asked to edit the Review and that he declined. From that date, June 1876, to 1885 I have no knowledge as to whether any progress was made with the scheme. But I think that there ​can be no doubt that it was in Mr. Bryce's mind all along; and that he talked the matter over with Mr. York Powell. It was, I feel sure, through Powell that the existing Review, of which we are keeping the feast, was in fact established. Early in 1885 there were several gatherings of a few friends here in Oxford—they were too informal to be called meetings—in which the subject was discussed. The names which I recall in connexion with them are those of Powell, Round, Tout, Firth, and Archer. … We drew up a general scheme, and we agreed to invite Mr. Bryce to undertake the duties of editor. We had nothing to offer except a promise that we would endeavour to raise a sustentation fund and a list of subscribers to keep the Review going. In the Easter vacation Powell had a long talk with Mr. Bryce. As we had feared at the outset, Mr. Bryce's public engagements precluded him from accepting our invitation; he recommended us to ask in his stead Mr. Creighton, who had then lately come back from Northumberland to occupy the chair of ecclesiastical history at Cambridge. Mr. Bryce also made a point of our asking an American historian to act as Corresponding Editor in the United States. As I shall not have occasion to refer to this again I may mention that the late Dr. Justin Winsor, librarian of Harvard, most kindly undertook this duty, and gave us his valuable services for a number of years. When he died, it was not considered necessary to continue the office. The appearance of the American Historical Review, with which we have always been on the most friendly terms, in fact, rendered it needless.
But to resume: at Mr. Bryce's advice, we turned to Mr. Creighton. Powell wrote him a letter in which he expressed his hope that he might be persuaded to become our editor. I well remember the letter, because it was written in my house. Partly in order to show Mr. Creighton that the duties which we asked of him would not be too burdensome, and partly, too, in order that the Review might have a definite connexion with Oxford, Powell laid stress on our wish that he should have an assistant here to do the rough work of the Review, and he mentioned my name as a suitable person for the job. Why I was chosen I do not really know. Certainly no one believed that I was specially qualified on historical grounds. But it was supposed that I was fairly business-like, and I had at least the merit of writing a legible hand. This was the proposal which was made to Mr. Creighton. He accepted it without demur. But he made one important change in the practical carrying out of the scheme. He rejected the idea of subscribers, and went straight to Mr. Longman and asked him to persuade his firm to take up the enterprise. Some of us may have regretted that ​by this change the originators of the Review lost any power of control in its management; but we had confidence in Mr. Creighton, and we gained the indispensable advantage of appearing before the world with the prestige of the name of one of the greatest English publishing houses.
The next stage in the history of the Review was reached on 1 May, when Mr. Creighton came over to preach the St. Philip and St. James's university sermon at Merton. Mr. Powell asked me to meet him at lunch in his old rooms in Canterbury quadrangle; and there I made my editor's acquaintance. We spent the afternoon in drawing up a prospectus and in arranging a list of persons to whom it should be sent out. I still have a proof of that prospectus with corrections and additions in Mr. Bryce's handwriting. I also possess the answers which I received to the letters inviting support, and in turning them over recently I have been astonished at the widespread interest which our undertaking called forth.
By July we were ready for action, and on the 15th of that month Mr. Bryce—the godfather of our enterprise—invited a small company to dine with him in Bryanston Square. Of those who were present I may mention Lord Acton, Dean Church, Mr. Creighton, Mr. Richard Garnett, Dr. Ward, Robertson Smith, and York Powell. … We spent a long evening settling the general policy of the Review—I say 'we', though I of course only acted as a sort of secretary. The whole plan was settled and approved, and the way was clear for publication in the following January.
You have read in Creighton's Life the account of our editor's labours in bringing out the first number. He had articles ready from the late Provost of Oriel, Freeman, and Seeley. But Lord Acton's article was late in arriving, and the last article, which is now known to have been written by Mr. Thursfield, was delayed in consequence of the difficulty in getting permission to print some private letters. Then there was a preface to be written, and Mr. Creighton in despair told me to write one. This I did, but happily before my preface arrived, another one was sent by Mr. Bryce, and that of course is the anonymous preface which opens our first volume. But the manuscript only reached the editor on 20 December, and the whole number had to be settled after that date. The first proof of Lord Acton's article did not appear until the 23rd. At last Mr. Creighton went up to London and occupied Messrs. Spottiswoode's office until the number was finished. He appealed to Mr. Longman to allow him an extra sheet; but Mr. Longman like a wise man sat firm. The number duly came out. The Times gave it a leading article, and we were fairly started on our way.
* ↑ Dr. William Hunt and Mr. (now Viscount) Bryce were both present at the dinner in 1905.
* ↑ Letters of John Richard Green, pp. 172–3.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 234.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 317.
* ↑ Ibid. pp. 433–7.