Showing 35 results

40 Ennismore Gardens. - Has received Ellis' letter, with the copy of that from Napier, and forwarded them to his father; it seems plain they will 'not be able to avoid legal proceedings'; has asked his father to arrange a meeting with Ellis. Marked by Ellis as received on 30 Jun. 1875.

On embossed House of Commons notepaper. - George [Trevelyan] has just told him that Napier has 'declined to correspond any further on the subject of Lord Macaulay's letters; advice as to future action.

Spring Gardens. - Sir Charles Trevelyan is sorry to learn that Napier 'cannot avail [himself] of the proposal which he authorized [Ellis] to make'; he must 'protect his undoubted rights', which Napier himself acknowledges, and gives notice that any attempt by Napier 'to publish any of Lord Macaulay's letters will be met by an immediate application of the proper court to restrain such action'.

Alterations and additions made to draft in blue pencil.

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

Edinburgh. - Have received yesterday's letter and the copy correspondence accompanying it. Sets out how Scottish law seems to differ from English in respect to copyright, with an extended quotation from George Joseph Bell's Commentaries. They have made enquiries and believe that Edmonston & Douglas are Napier's publishers, and that they are currently communicating with their printers 'with a view to publishing some of the letters [by Lord Macaulay] in question]. To prevent this, 'the legal remedy afforded by our Courts is an Interdict against the Publishers'; 'distinct particulars of the letters in question' are requested in case this course must be taken.

Before taking any definite action, they wish to 'lay the whole matter before some good counsel here, such as Mr [John?] Balfour. They will watch for advertisements put out by Napier.

40 Ennismore Gardens. - Has read Ellis' letter, and the copy of Messrs Gibson Craig's. Sets out course he thinks should be followed re Macvey Napier's intention to publish letters of Lord Macaulay. 'It is quite evident that Napier only proposed to publish after he learned of my being engaged [in working on the letters]'

Edinburgh. - Have received Mr Balfour's opinion on the Memorial which was submitted to him for Sir Charles Trevelyan; encloses copy [no longer present]. Since his opinion is favourable, he has prepared a draft note of suspension and interdict against Messrs Edmondston & Douglas and their printers Messrs Thomas and Archibald Constable; a telegraph should be sent if the interdict should be applied for at once. Date of Lord Macaulay's will also requested.

Edinburgh. - Enclosing copies [no longer present] of the application for Interdict; the answers thereto for Edmonston & Douglas and for Thomas & Archibald Constable; and of the 'Copy Interlocutor or order by Lord Ormidale dated yesterday'.

Messrs Edmonston & Douglas 'who it appears had been very recently negotiating with Mr Napier as to the publication of a life of his father) now disclaim any intention so to publish', and the Lord Ordinary has recalled the Interdict against them with expenses. The interdict remains effectual against Messrs Constable until proceedings against Mr Napier in England determine the rights of parties - or unless either the complainants have the interdict declared perpetual or Messrs Constable have it removed. Will be glad to know if it is intended to take proceedings against Mr Napier, 'as the interdict against Messrs Constable stands upon the representation that such proceedings are to be brought.

With copy of letter.

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'.

Edinburgh. - They have received the copy of Mr Napier's letter; do not consider that this affects 'the position of parties', and think that the application of interdict was warranted. Neither the Complainers [Sir Charles and George Otto Trevelyan] nor Ellis & Ellis seem to have been informed of his abandonment of a general publication and proposal to have only fifty copies printed; this has not been assented to and the printers 'at present stand interdicted from "printing" for "circulation". Proceedings in England will determine whether he is within his rights to have this small run printed for private circulation.

Prestons. - Returns the papers, which he thinks 'satisfactory enough'. Will come up on Monday unless he hears to the contrary. Seems 'clear that if Mr Napier is willing to come to terms, this is the time for stopping proceedings. His conduct in not informing us of his desire to print privately is of a piece with his usual want of frankness, but I do not intend to be angry, but to settle the matter as best we can'.

Has received Napier's letter of the 29th. True that Sir Charles Trevelyan was ignorant of how Napier intended to use the letters being printed by Constable, but this is because Napier had not informed him of his intentions and closed correspondence last month. Napier expresses a hope of 'terminating the differences that have arisen' between himself and Trevelyan, but does not say in what way.

For the present, Sir Charles 'objects to the circulation of Lord Macaulay letters', and unless Napier disclaims his intention to circulate them and agrees to arrange that the interdict against Constable remains in place, Trevelyan 'must, as he is advised take proceedings against [Napier] in England'. He abides by the offer he made on 21 June, and does not see how he can improve on it.

Richmond. - Has received Ellis's letter of the 31st.

40 Enniesmore Gardens. - Has consulted his father; they both remember Napier's kindness in giving them copies of Trevelyan's uncle's letters; think it best to refer him to their 'confidential family adviser', George Ellis, who has received their instructions in the matter.

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'.

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.

Sir Charles Trevelyan's letter to Ellis of the same date (O.18.7/42) is copied out; alterations and additions have been made to form the text of the letter Ellis is to send to Napier.

Edinburgh. - With thanks for copies of most recent letters between Napier and Ellis.

Richmond. - If Sir Charles Trevelyan accepts Napier's promise '"without limitation"', Napier 'is at a loss to understand on what grounds he continues the Interdict'; hopes Trevelyan's agent in Edinburgh will recall it.

Ightham, Kent. - Quite agrees that they should not remove the interdict; if Constable applies to have it removed they should produce Napier's letter and 'apply for time to take proceedings against him in Chancery which should then at once be commenced'. Thinks Ellis should 'answer very decidedly as to the matter'.

Spring Gardens. - Napier does not give any reasons for wishing the interdict to be recalled; Ellis is 'at a loss' to think what motive he can have for it after his letter of 6th Aug.

Edinburgh. - With thanks for copies of most recent letters; they also 'do not see what Mr Napier is aiming at, and you are quite right in not consenting to withdraw the interdict'. If Napier has no intention of publishing the letters, 'the fact that the interdict still remains in place cannot do either him or the Messrs Constable any harm'.

Richmond. - Believes that the agreement between himself and Sir Charles Trevelyan 'necessarily involved the withdrawal of that interdict, and superseded further discussion', so he does not need to give any reason for wanting the interdict recalled. Reminds Ellis that the Lord Ordinary stayed proceedings against Constable 'pending the issue of proceedings in England' against Napier; since these proceedings were abandoned by Trevelyan, 'beg[s] to know on what plea they are continued' against him in Scotland 'under colour of an interdict against Mr Constable'. Finds the line taken in Ellis' letter 'at once so inconsistent, and so wanting in courtesy', that he must request Ellis to refer the point to Sir Charles.

Probably by George Henry Ellis.

Spring Gardens. - Copy of letter from Napier to Ellis, 7 Sept. 1875 [O.18.7/49], followed by draft of letter from Ellis to Trevelyan. Napier's letter leaves Ellis 'no choice of withholding' it from Trevelyan, 'however inconvenient it may be'. Ellis believes that Napier 'misunderstands his position'; Gibson Craig & Co agree.

Edinburgh. - They 'quite approve' of the terms of the proposed answer to Napier.

Ightham, Kent. - Likes Ellis's answer to Napier; thinks they 'should no longer continue the correspondence';'it is preposterous that we should have to find answers to his trashy letters, which he has nothing on earth to do but to write'.

Edinburgh. - Enclose their account [no longer present], which includes costs due by Sir Charles Trevelyan to Messrs Edmonston & Douglas and paid by Gibson & Co. They understood the correspondence of July-September 1875 to constitute an arrangement by which Sir Charles and George Trevelyan would stay proceedings, and Napier was not to publish any of the letters in question until the 'Life' of Lord Macaulay was published, and on this understanding they did not take steps to have the interdict declared perpetual. Therefore an order for costs against Messrs Constable would not be granted.