Showing 12 results

16 Spring Gardens, 21 Jun. 1876. - Has seen Sir Charles Trevelyan and discussed with him and George Trevelyan what took place in the meeting between Ellis and Napier on Saturday.

In George Trevelyan's life of Lord Macaulay, he has not used everything from the letters he published; some passages which would be 'interesting in a history of the Edinburgh Review' have been omitted; he has also 'omitted some passages which Sir Charles Trevelyan thinks it due to Lord Macaulay's memory to suppress'; a great many letters have not been used at all.

Sir Charles is happy for Mr Napier to use the whole of Macaulay's Napier correspondence after the lapse of six months from the date of the publication of the life, 'with the reservation only that Sir Charles, or whoever may legally represent Lord Macaulay, is to be informed of what is proposed to be used... and to be at liberty, as Lord Macaulay's representative is now, to object to the use of any letter or part of a letter which shall have been omitted from the Life. Sir Charles adds his assurance that this power of restriction shall be used liberally and honorably, with a desire to comply with Mr Napier's wishes'.

Probably by George Henry Ellis.

Prestons, Ighton [on embossed notepaper for 8 Grosvenor Crescent]. - Writes out his suggested reply to Napier's last letter. Should criticisms of Napier's father's relations with Lord Macaulay or his conduct as editor of the Edinburgh Review arise on the publication of the Life of Macaulay, Sir Charles 'will be ready to give [Napier] every facility consistent with his duty as Representative of Lord Macaulay, it being understood that the Letters or portions of letters proposed to be published will be indicated to him beforehand and that they will not be published without his consent'. Sir Charles 'has already acknowledged the obligation he is under' to Napier for providing copies of the letters, and feels he has acted towards him 'with corresponding liberality' in making the proposal in his letter of 21 June.

Richmond. - Is willing to abide by Sir Charles Trevelyan's wish and to pledge not to print or circulate any of the letters [from Lord Macaulay to his father] 'till the Life of Lord Macaulay is in the hands of the public'. Supposes that there will be nothing in the 'Life' affecting his father 'which would be likely to call from public notice' from him; however, expects the work 'will be the subject of criticism in all newspapers and periodicals, and remarks may be made on my Father's relations with Lord Macaulay, or on his conduct as editor of the Edinburgh Review, which it might be absolutely necessary to answer'. Macaulay's letters might afford 'the only means of vindication'. Feels it is necessary for him to reserve the power to 'use them according to circumstances', which Trevelyan's terms would not allow.

If this is insisted on he will feel hard done by, since he made available to Trevelyan 'Without imposing a single restriction... a collection of letters without which he has himself said the Life of Lord Macaulay would be imperfect and by which his biographer will benefit not only in a literary but also in a pecuniary way'.

Richmond. - Writes in hope of terminating the differences which have arisen between himself and Sir Charles Trevelyan. Had intended to publish a selection of his father's correspondence, including many of Lord Macaulay's letters, and sent it to Edinburgh to be published. Abandoned this intention in consequence of Trevelyan's objections; thought however that he would be 'acting within the law, and not infringing [Trevelyan's] legal rights' if he had printed only 'an impression of fifty copies... for private circulation'; Messrs Constable were printing this when served with an interdict. Heard of the proceeding 'with great surprise'; thinks it must have been 'taken in ignorance of [his] real intentions'.

On House of Commons notepaper. - Is correcting proof sheets, and would like to have the book of Napier's letters back, on the understanding that Ellis can 'have them at call'; will pick them up on Monday. Sorry to hear Ellis has been unwell.

Spring Gardens. - Probably drawn up by George Henry Ellis. Describes the situation between Sir Charles and George Otto Trevelyan on the one side and Macvey Napier on the other over publication of Lord Macaulay's lawyer.

Mr [Horace] Davey has seen the correspondence and given his opinion; it needs to be established whether the courts in Scotland will take the same view as Davey; the next stage is to 'restrain if possible the publication without Sir Charles Trevelyan's consent of Lord Macaulay's letters'.

Sets out the status of Sir Charles Trevelyan, the late Thomas Flower Ellis, and George Henry Ellis in relation to Lord Macaulay's letters

Broadlands. - Will Hayward offer Napier [Macvey Napier, of the Edinburgh Review] an article by Milnes on Custine's Russia?; has just returned from 'the Land's End'.