The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-16 00:00:00

LORD BYRON AND Mit.MURRAY.

[As many of our Readers have expressed a de-
sire that we should insert what appears in the
Public Journals respecting the BYRON CON•
TROVEILSY, we comply with their wishes, and at
the same time deem it proper to observe, that
TILE SUN is open to all the Parties concerned for
the correction of any erroneous statements.]

[Front the Mot yang Chronicle.]
TO TIM EDITOR OF THE MORNING cHnomrcE.
Sin—ln the absence of Mr. Medwin, who is on the Conti.
nent, and who will doubtless eventually substantiate, by origi.
nal letters or other documents in hip possession, the general au-
thenticity of his work, I beg leave to observe, the extracts of
letters published by Mr. Murray, in answer to certain state-
ments affecting that Gentleman, contrary to the first impression
produced by them, tend, on a mature consideration, to corro.
borate the truth and authenticity of the Convereallowt, except
in the single instance of the deed ...NA even on this point the
letters are not very conclusive. "5:

Captain Medwin says, p. Mr. Murray answers this by
170, " When he (Mr. Mur- referring to the deed for the
ray) purchased Cain, the Taro Two l'oteari, Cain, &c. in
Foreari, and Sardanapalru, he which no such clause is to be
sent me a deed, which you may found, and which is signed in
remember witnessing. NVell, London by Mr. Kinnatrd, and
after its return to England, it witnessed by Mr. Williams.
was discovered that it contain- Now, it is to he observed, that
ed a clause which had been in- it does not appear very conclu-
troduced without my know- sive that this is the identical
ledge—a clause by which I deed referred to by Mr. Med-
bound myself to offer Mr. win ' • it might have been a
Murray all my future compo. deed relative to some former
sitions, but I sball take no no- purchase, which the party had
tice of it." taken this opportunity of send-

- -
log for Lord (Ws signature,
for it is well known, that al-
though that respecting the Two
Forcari was not signed in
London, yet others were sent to
Italy to be executed by Lord
Byron himself. If Capt. Med-
win had desired to practise any
deception (which is quite im-
probable), is it at all likely he
would have committed himself
in so unguarded a manner ?
Certainly not. And I have no
doubt, if Mr. Murray had
chosen to refer to the other
deeds, he would have found
one witnessed by. Mr. Med-
win, and containing a clause
of the nature alluded to.

Another statement attetnpted to be refuted by Mr. Murray Is
at page 167 :
Capt. Medwin says : Mr. Murray, in answer,
"Murray offered me 10001. a quotes a letter, in which Lord
Canto for Don Juan, and after- Byron says, " I have copied
wards reduced it to 5001. on the and cut the Third Canto of
plea of piracy, and complained Don Juan into two, because it
of my dividing one Canto into was too long," and adds, "that
two, because I happened to th two are to go for one."
say sore thing at the end rf the are we see the mention ac-
AirdCantoofhaeinploneso." tint y Made of dividing the
Third Canto into two, as al-
luded to in the Conversations,
and on referring to the price
• given by Mr. Murray, it does
appear that he only gave 500
guineas for the Fifth Canto.
Now, as Mr. Murray does not
inatelhe reason of the diming-
don of price, is it not reason-
able to conclude that it was, as
stated in The Conversations,on
the plea of piracy ?
Again at pate 168 of Captain This passage is corroborated
Medwin, Lord Byron says," I by an extract of a letter, which
have altered my mind consi- appeared in The Literary Ga-
derably upon that subject aette of the 6th of November,
(booksellers and the sale of In which Lord Byron writes
his works), as I once hinted to to Mr. Murray, that Mr. Ro-
Mr. Murray, I see no reason gent and have convinced
why a man should not profit him that he ought not to be so
by the sweat of his brain, as generous to booksellers.
well as that of his brow."

In addition to these remarks, Mr. Editor, I beg you will,
injustice to Mr. Medwin, who is not present to defend him-
self, give place to the following extracts from The Exa-
miner, which among others, completely falsify the statement
so unblushingly set forth by Mr. Murray, that nothing had
occurred to subvert Lord Byron's friendly sentiments to.
wards him.
I am, Sir, your very obedient Servant.
THE EDITOR Oks "THE CON VERS.A.TIONS."
LORD BYRON AND MR. MURRAY.
(From the Examiner.)
We intended to have quoted in our last Number the whole
of what Captain Aledwin reports as uttered by Lord Byron in
various conversations; regarding Mr. Murray, his Lordship's
former bookseller. But before we had put the matter into the
printer's hands, a long statement front Mr. Murray himself ap.
peered in the :lady papers, contradicting in express terms all
the specific charges related by Captain Medwm, and quoting
largely, to establish this contradiction, from the Noble Poet's
letters to his ci•devant Publisher. As we have not helped to
circulate the accusations, we of course are not bound to give the
replies In detail; but we shall briefly advert to the principal
points.
Thy following, though vague, is undoubtedly a serious
im-
patation Murray," said Lord Byron, " pretends to have
lost money by my writings, and pleads poverty ; but it' he is
poor, which is somewhat problematical to me, pray who is to
blame? • • Mr. 3lurray is tender of my lame 1 How kind
in him 1 He is afraid of my writing too fast. Why P because
ha has a tender regard for his own pocket, and does not like
the look of any new acquaintance, in the shape of a book of
mine, till lie has seen his old &lends in a variety of new faces;
est, disposed of it vast many editions of the former works. I
don't know what would become of me without Douglas Kin.
naird, who has always been my best and kindest friend. It is
not easy to deal with Mr.. Murray."—Nedwin, p. 166.

111 r. Murray answers, that in the numerous letters he receiv-
ed from Lord 8., who nevertheless always spoke his mind very
freelx, there is nothing which would even indicate a feeling of
the Ind attributed to tar Lordship by Capt. Aledwin. Ile adds,
that the " incongruity of these imputations will be evident"
from a list he subjoins of the high prices which he paid the
Noble Poet for his copy-rights, from Childs Harold to Don
plea which (if he ever
Juan, Canto V. inclusive, amounting in all to more than
16,0001. We confess we do not see the conclusiveness of this
pecuniary argument. 111 r. Murray *ilea have given a direct
''think •
denial to the assertion, that pleaded poverty and loss of
made to assert
1,0001. a canto for Do;i
mmaleeyitb)yoLeurptil4bilitcyfiwrnoointu'loa:b:cred'ristrowgst:tno
either true or cre-
ditable to the maker.
lertaedinuci:dieditwitor.:sso book,o is
eie plea of piracy,
Juan,
haaatn3, Lordal
nrß.dyi rtounr,r
a i
afterwards(:
and complained of one canto being divided into two. Sir:
Murray meets this by quoting a letter from Lord 8., in which
he expressly announces that the two short cantos, made out of
one of the ordinary length, must only be paid for as
one,
and
begs not to be suspected of a contrivance to get double p 4.—
This is of course decisive in the bookseller's layour.
The next charge is still more scandalously
truth. We quote from Aledwin opposed to the
" Becriusel gave him one of my poems, he wanted to make
me believe that I had made him a present of two others."
Instead of this, it appears from a letter of Lord Byron's, that
he had expressly presented the poerus in question to Mr. Mur-
ray ; that the latter had notwithstanding remitted his Lord-
ship's draft for 1;000 guineas, of which he pressed the accep-
tance as payment for the copyright; that Lord B. at first re.
fused, and sent back the draft torn, but subsequently was in-
duced," by Mr. Murray's earnest persuaaion," to accept it,
and to assign the poems accordingly for value received.
Another passage in 41folwin's Convents:ions is equally un-
pardonable, and in regard to the asterisks, very pitiful
When Alurray purmatied • Cain,' ` The Two Foscari.'
and • sardimapalus,' he sent me a deed, !thigh you way ro-

member witnessing. NVeU, after its return to England, it was
discovered that • • • • •
• • • • • •

But I shall take no notice of it."

Such was the form in which the passage appeared in the two
first Editions of Methyl!). Mr. Murray required and obtained
from the publisher the suppressed words, as follow :
" it contained a clause which had been introduced
without my knowledge, a clause by which I bound myself to
offer Mr. Murray all my future compositions."
Every assertion in this passage appears to he false; there is no
:uch dame in the deed, which moreover was notsigned abroad,
or witnessed by Captain W. but was signed in London, aid
witnessed by the very friend of' whom Lord B. speaks so
highly as the guardian of his interests—the Honourable Dou-
glas Kinnaird
Upon the foregoing points, it is impossible to deny that Mr.
Murray has made out a most complete case ; and whether Med-
win has sinned wilfully or from an inexcusable slovenliness, an
exposure of mis-statements so gross in regard to one subject in
his book, inevitably throws an air oh' suspicion over the rest, and
destroys our reliance on that fidelity so essential to this species
of literary reporting. Mr. Murray does not content himself,
however, with simply refuting the specific charges above noticed ;
hut, in order to do away the general impression which Mmi win's
book is calculated to convey—viz. that he had treated Lord B.
unhandsomely in his dealings—he " thinks he shall be forgiven
for stating the following circumstance :
" Mr. Murray, having accidentally heard that Lord Byron
was in pecuniary difficulties, immediately forwarded 1,5001. to
him, with an assurance that another such sum should be at his
service in a few months; and that, if such assistance should
not be sufficient, Mr. Murray would be ready to sell the copy-
right of all his Lordship'l works for his use.
" The following is Lord Byron's acknowledgment of this
offer

" Nov. 14, 1815.
" DEsit Sin—l return you your bills, not accepted, butcer.
tainly not unhonoured. lour offer is a favour which I would
accept from you if I accepted such from any man. Had such
been my intention, I can assure you I would. have asked you
fairly, and as freely, as you would'give ; and I cannot say more
of my confidence or your conduct. The circumstances which
induce me to pan with my books, though sufficiently, are not
inanediately pressing. I have made up my mind to them, and
there is an end. Had I been disposed to trespass on your
kindness in this way, it would have been before now, but I am
not sorry to have an opportunity of declining it, as it sets my
opinion of you, and indeed of human nature, in a different light
from that in which I have been accustomed to consider it.

" Believe me, very truly your obliged and faithful servant,
" To John Murray Esq. " BYRON."

The " wealthy bookseller, in pressing ad.
vances of money upon the popular poet of the day, may well
excite a smile, without knowing anything further on the sub-
ject ; but when the public are informed (as they will be before
we conclude this article) of the subsequent behaviour of Mr.
Murray to the Noble Lord, we fancy they will be much in-
dined to class this vaunted " generosity" along with the" gra.
titude" attributed. by Horace Walpole to certain politicians,
and 'so truly described by him as "a lively sense of benefits
to come."

Of this anon, however. lire have not yet done with Captain
Med win's statements, for there are.some which Mr. Murray
does not attempt to deny, or attempts very lamely. Lord By.
ron evidently hit the right nail on the head, in regard to the
Court Bookseller's embarrassment between the patronage of
office and a lucrative opposition customer : --
" Murray has long prevented the Quarterly' from abusing
me. Some of their bullies have had their fingers itching to be
at me s but they would get the worst of it in a set to • *
* * Murray and I have dissolved all connection : he

had the choice of giving up me or the Navy List. There was
no hesitation which way he should decide : the Admiralty car-
ried the day."—( Captain llfedrrirt, p. 189-1714
Mr. Murray's answer is amusing. The assertion about the
Admiralty, he says, is " unfounded in fact ;" as if it was meant
literally, that my Lords Commissioners had proposed to him
the alternative of surrendering either the Navy List or Lord
Byron's poems! " With regard to the Quarterly Review," he
proceeds, " his Lordship well knew that it was established
and constantly conducted on principles which absolutely ex-
cluded Mr. Murray from all such interference and influence
as is implied in the Conversations."--His Lordship must have
been prodigiously deep then in the independent tactics practised
between a servile manager and his literary entploy4l If Mr.
Murray exercised no influence over the Quarterly Review, it
must be acknowledged that the books he published had a ma-
gical charm for its critics. But this delicate matter is so hap-
pily illustrated by the next passage we shall quote from Capt.
that we should only lose time in farther remarks
upon it ;
" it is true enough that ' Don Juan' has been pirated ; but
whom has he to thank but himself? In the first place, he put
too high a price on the copies of the two first cantos that came
out, only printing a quarto edition, at, I think, a guinea and
a half. There was a great demand for it, and this induced the
knavish booksellers to buccaneer. If he had put " John Alm.-
ray" on the title-page, like a man, instead of smuggling the
brat into the world, and getting Davison, who is a printer and
not a publisher, to father it, who would have ventured to ques.
tion his paternal rights ? or who would have attempted to de-
prive hint of them ?—The thing was plainly this: he disowned
and refused to acknowledge the bantling ; the natural conse.
quenee was, that others should come forward to adopt it. Mr.
John Murray is the most nervous of God's booksellers. When
• Don Juan' first came out, he was so frightened,
that he
made a precipitate retreat into the country, shut himself up
and would not open his letters, The fad Is, he prints for too,
many Bishops. He is always boring me with piratical edition
after edition, to prove the amount of his own losses, anti fur-
nish proof of the extent of his own folly."
Mr. Murray takes no notice whatever of this part of the
story—a prudent silence, doubtless. We would wager a trifle,
that he will be equally dumb In regard to the following exposi.
tion, which is rather a more serious matter.
After giving the last-quoted letter from ford BYRON, rela-
tive to the °ilia of money, Mr. Murray states, that " NO-
THING lIAD OCCURRED TOODIIVERT Turest FRIENDLY
SENTIIIENTs,"—(4. e., the friendship of Lord Byron for Mr.
Murray), and to bear out this assertion, he
.quotes two letters—
a short complimentary one from Lord B. to himself, dated May
8, 1819; and a longer one, most certainly not in the old friend.
ly tone, dated Al issolonglii, Feb.
.25, 1824. A long interval,
the reader will allow how it was m part filled up, a plain tale
shall set forth.

Ir. the autumn of 1822, Lord Byron transmitted to London
an order upon Mr. John Murray to deliver to the Publisher of
eunrrawyr written
hesitated
tce7toid epruabblliesitlini
illiladaechdeerne
f:pusuetdi.n
the Liberal, his poem entitled the Fitton of Judgment, in order
lAlalrd.l%b
to its being printed in the first No. of that work. This poem
proof sent to Lord Byron, and returned by him corrected ; but
however, he was waited type,
upon with the order for its delivery, ho
manifested an extreme reluctance to part with it, and nuggested
that he would "get it published" (in the sneaking mode .no
doubt that he had adopted with Don Juan.) The delivery of the
piece was however insisted on; apd Mr. Murray then sent to
the Publisher of the Liberal,—not the complete and corrected
proof he had received from Lord Byron,—but a copy
printed before correction, and having the Preface, an es-
sential and most important portion of tho work, taken
away. The Publisher of the Liberal was consequently
ignorant of the existence of a Preface; and he printed the
poem from the imperfect and incorrect copy, never sup-
posing but that it was the corrected proof which he knew the
Author had sent to London. In its published state, rouse,
quently, the piece was full of errors, and contained phrases
which Lord Byron never intended to appear; for his Lordship
was in the habit of transmitting MSS. to lingland with many
words anti passages which be had by no means determined to
print, but which he let go for the time, knowing he should
have an opportunity of erasing or modifying them, frequeetly
at a inure reflective moment, in the proofs winch were invariably
sent out to him. But the printing of a poem with numerous
blunders WAS not the only mischief to which Mr. Murray know%
ingly subjected Lord Byron and the Publisher of the Liberal
by this inexcusable trick. To say nothing of the suppressed
Preface (which explained many of the sieereat things in the
poem) in the eorreeted proof, which he withheld, the harshest
epithets applied to Ueorge the Third in the Vision were omitted
.....the very epithets which formed the pith of the indictment on
which the Publisher has been convicted and sentenced l Let
the reader turn to the errata in the second• edition of the Li.
No. 1., and then ask himself whether, had those correc-
tions not been inexcusably withheld by Mr. Murray the Book.
seller, the Vision of Judgment would ever have been indicted
by Mr. Murray the Moek-Constitutional Attorney?
After conduct like this, is it uncharitable to say, that in
making suers of pecuniary advanves, Mr. Murray only showed

himself a shrewd speculator, who knew the advantage of laps
ing under obligation a pr.dific producer orgolden verses 1' As
long as he expected to derive benefit from Lord Byron, he was
forward enough with his flattery and his pressing offers of
money; bur when he found that Lord B.—disguated with his
underhand mode of publishing Don Juan, and with the omis-
sions of passages in his writings in deference to the courtly or
canting crew—began to adopt other channels for the publication
of his works, Mr. Murray did nut hckitate to deceive, injure,
and insult his former patron in the manner we have just nar-
rated. Vet tie did riot give up all hope at once, nor leave off
altogether his cringing habits. In October, 1822, he wrote to
Lord Byron (as we learnt from a friend with the latter in
Italy) how delighted he would be, if his Lordship would but
be "so nebtgrmeroas" as to let him publish works of hitt
" former giormus description"—[what an eminently bad com-
pliment tothe Noble Bard !1—And in anotlir letter lie declares,
that he Ms of a morning, for hours, looking at hit Lordship's
picture. Imagine the languishing bookseller ! A bout the saint
time, he begged to be allowed to publish Werner without
heaven and Earth,'" for fear of the parsons."—But what did
Lord Byron thjnk of all this? A letter to Mr. Murray, which
was on it peal to England while the latter was turning these
prettycoMpliments, will settle that point:---_

"Genoa, Oct. 22,
Sin—You have delivered to Mr. Hunt the Vision of judg.
mint with Out the prelim:. with which I had taken particular
pains, and 'particularly desired you to forward to him. Ii this
fair--is it honest ? Ia it proper to be thus remiss with papers
committed to your charge, and in which you knew that I was
interested ? You have also delivered to him some prose tracts
incomplete, which you sent to me complete at the beginning o[
the year. I have no wish to repeat what I have so often been
obliged to say, and I leave you to your own reflection on the
manner in which you have conducted yourself towards me in
this matter. " I am, your obedtentst-rvanti____ _

_
" NOEL IWRON.
" P.S. If you have (as seems apparently to be the case) pur.
posely-kypt back the Preface to the Vi ion--I can only say,
that I have no words strong enough to express my sense of suit
conduct.

" To John Murray, Esq.
Care of John Hunt, Esq., London."
If Mr. Murray had done this wrong in nregence only (how.
ever unpardonable) would he not, on receiving such a fetter as
the above, have hastened to explain as much to Lord Byron,
who manifestly believed there was a bad design 1' He owed
Lord B. at least an apology ; and he owed to himself, if igno-
rant of the wilful offence, an explanation. Con his silence
then be construed otherwise than as consciousness of wrong''
How many more letters in a similar style Mr. Murray re,
ceived from the same writer, we cannot say ; but we see this
letter sdlucles to others in a like tone, and we know that the
sense of his misconduct here expressed by Lord Byron was
neither a transient impression, nor one that any " explanation"
did or could remove. In November, 1822, in a letter pointing
out au creatures, his Lordship adds—" This, however' is the
fisult of honest Mr. Murray ;" and on the 24th April, 1023
the treatment he had received in that matter was still so much
on his mind, that (in a letter to England) he enforces a direc.
Lion about some publication thus emphatically--" Do notforget
this nor treat sae as Mr. Murray did about the 'Preface to Me
Vision." The reader may now refer toMr. Al urray's declaration,
in his answer to Captain Medwin, that " NOTHING OC.,
CUBILED TO SUBVERT THESE FRIENDLY SENTIMENTS"
of Lord Byron towards himself !

Mr. Murray, we repeat, was ready enough with his bank-
bills in advance, when he thought he could by them sensfe
future lucrative publications ; but when he began toloubt the
continuance of the advantage he derived from Lord 8., ha did
not hesitate, we see, to commit an act which he knew might
lead, and which did lead, to very mischievous consequences--
which be also knew must be peculiarly painful to his Lordship
as an author—and which it is impossible to regard otherwise
than as a shameful insult, as indeed Lord B. evidently felt it.
Yet, until he received the letter above quoted, by which ha
learnt that his treacherous suppression was known to the Noble
Poet, he still endeavoured to obtain favours from him by the
low adulation we have described. But enough : he will be
cautious how he asserts again in print that Lord Byron's friend-
ship for him suffered no interruption.
P. S. Should Mr. Murray so far condescend to Publie
Opinion as to put forth an answer to this statement, we beg he
will include in it a reply to the subjoined question
Did Mr. Murray ever receive a verbal compliment paid ap
him by Lord Byron, from the lips of Colonel —, on the
return of the latter from the lonian Islands ?

• There is a laughable little history connected with the deli.
very of this letter, which we must tell our readers. it was sent
from Italy, without seal or wafer, enclosed in a letter to Mr.
John Hunt, who was directed to " take a copy and forward it
open." Nevertheless, Mr. hunt put the letter in an euvelopii,,
which he sealed and directed to Mr. Murray, and forwarded*
Albemarle.street; not wishing to inflict on Mr. M. the hums:
liation of receiving an open letter through his servant*. • Mr.
Murray, however, unluckily " rode the high horse," at that
moment; and thinking perhaps to annoy Mr. Hunt by a piccu
of affected scorn and real rudeness, returned the double letter
unopened. [lt had " From Mr. J. H." on the outside.] Thera
wee no alternative; the intended mercy had been unconsciously
spurned ; laird Byron's letter was taken out, and delivered
open at Mr. Murray's counter; whence (not perhaps without
being first perused by his clerks and shopinen) it was of out**
expedited to the inner sanctum, where the scornful Bookseller
sat wrapped in ids proud contempt ! It was impossible to pity
him—the retribution was so entirely the fruit of arrogance and
ill-manners.

We think it right to say,. that if this letter could, fit
sense, be deemed a private one of Air. Murray's, it
never have met the public eye in our columns. We reprobate
as much as any one the late and threatened violations of friendly
confidence in regard to Lord I3yron's Conversations ;nd Cor•
respondence. We regard Captain Medwin's book as one en.
tire breach of propriety; and we suspect it will not be long
before it is shown to be a breach of' truth to nearly the sums
extent.