Address: To/ The Reverend Herbert Hill/ Streatham/ Surrey
Stamped: [illegible]
Postmarks: [partial] ck/ NO 20/ 1822 FNn; [illegible]
MS: Keswick Museum and Art Gallery, WC 223. ALS; 4p.
Previously published: John Wood Warter (ed.), Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey, 4 vols (London, 1856), III, pp. 345–347 [in part].
I have got from an Edinburgh Catalogue
(1)
The catalogue of William Laing (1764–1832), Edinburgh bookseller, whose shop Southey had visited in 1805 and 1819. He was the father of David Laing.
a little book printed at Braga 1624. “Musa Panegyrica in Theodosium”, is the title, & Miguel Pinto de Sousa the author.
(2)
Gaspar Pinto Correia (1596–1664), Musa Panegyrica in Theodosium (1624), no. 2253 in the sale catalogue of Southey’s library. Southey noted in this work: ‘This singularly rare book I obtained from Laing’s Catalogue.’
Its rarity at least, makes it worth a new coat, & the contents appear to be curious, as showing the strong feeling which at that time prevailed in favour of the Braganzas.
(3)
Portugal had been part of Spain since 1580, but a successful revolt led by the Braganza family in 1640 restored the country’s independence and the Braganzas founded a new ruling dynasty.
By what I have learnt, I believe the scheme for uniting Spain & Portugal under a Braganzan King, would be regarded by our government as desirable, if it were feasable. In my opinion it cannot be brought about. The Spaniards who wish to get rid of their wretched King
(4)
Ferdinand VII (1784–1833; King of Spain 1808, 1813–1833). He had lost much of his power in a liberal revolution in 1820.
(a wretch he is in both sense of the word
(5)
i.e. Ferdinand VII was both unhappy and contemptible.
) have no wish to substitute any other in his place. Arguelles
(6)
Agustín Argüelles (1776–1844), a Spanish liberal politician. He was one of the architects of the Constitution of 1812 and was imprisoned by the absolutist regime in 1814–1820. After the 1820 revolution he was Minister of the Interior 1820–1821 and a deputy to the new Cortes 1822–1823.
told Mackenzie
(7)
Colin Alexander Mackenzie (?1778–1851), a wealthy Scot who was employed on a number of delicate diplomatic missions and may well have been a government spy. In 1815 he was appointed one of the Commissioners of Liquidation, Arbitration and Deposit, who adjudicated on claims by British citizens for loss of property against the French government. Southey had met him in Paris in May 1817 and Mackenzie had provided the information about his role in the evacuation of the Spanish Army of the North from Denmark that appeared in Southey’s History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp…
that he did not like the English: – he wanted such English as those in Oliver Cromwells
(8)
Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector 1653–1658; DNB).
days. The scheme would be opposed both by the Republicans, who are the dominant faction at Madrid, – by the Royalists, who are doubtless the great majority of the nation, & by those persons who might very willingly consign Ferdinand to a Convent, provided the order of succession were respected, & his brother
(9)
Charles, Count of Molina (1788–1855); as he was even more reactionary than Ferdinand VII, this was an impractical plan.
called to the throne in his stead, – a measure quite as necessary here, as it was supposed to be in the case of Affonso 6.
(10)
Alfonso VI (1643–1683; King of Portugal 1656–1683); he was declared insane in 1668 and his brother, Pedro II (1648–1706; King of Portugal 1683–1706), became regent.
And this I think would be the compromise which foreign interference might effect.
I am using my influence to get John Coleridge chosen King of the Romans
(11)
A title used from the eleventh century by someone who had been elected by the princes of the Holy Roman Empire to be the next Emperor, but had yet to be crowned by the Pope. Once the title of Emperor effectively became hereditary in the Habsburg family in the sixteenth century and Emperors ceased to be crowned by the pope, the ‘King of the Romans’ became a title used by the Emperor’s designated heir. Here Southey means that John Taylor Coleridge should be the successor of William Gifford as editor of the Quarterly Review.
upon the demise, or abdication of the Emperor Gifford. For poor Gifford himself I heartily wish he may live as long as he thinks life desirable, but I shall be very glad if he withdraws from the Review, & consigns to it a more temperate & judicious editor, who will conduct it consistently, & in a proper spirit. If J. Coleridge has it, it will no longer blow hot & cold. It is very likely to pass into his hands; if it does my papers will not be mutilated in future, – nor will they be postponed to a following number sometimes when I have calculated upon their appearance.
To have taken the management myself would I think have been sacrificing more than I ought, for an increase of income, which, all things considered, must have been rather nominal than real. A residence near London would increase my expenditure one half at least, – & certainly cut off more than half my enjoyments. The Review already consumes more time than I like to bestow upon it; & the task of editing it would consume a great deal more, much more unpleasantly employed. Besides, no person can think less of my qualifications for managing any thing, than I do myself, – the whole habits of my life have tended to foster rather than correct an inaptitude & dislike to whatever has an appearance of business.
Writing not long ago to Murray in strong reprehension of the mischievous papers concerning America,
(12)
Southey to [John Murray], 1 November [1822], Letter 3911.
– I told him that if it had not been for those papers, I could now have drawn up for him an interesting article from some new American books.
(13)
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817), Travels in New-England and New-York (1821–1822), no. 881 in the sale catalogue of Southey’s library, reviewed by Southey in Quarterly Review, 30 (October 1823), 1–40, published 17 April 1824.
His high mightiness requests that I would so do “sliding, he says, as gentle as you can into the new tone, so as not to appear too abrupt, & as preparatory to the proper feeling in future.” – In truth the Review has been wretchedly mismanaged. What can be more pityful than the whole conduct concerning Lord Byron,
(14)
Murray was the publisher of both Byron and the Quarterly Review. The review of Byron’s Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice. An Historical Tragedy, in Five Acts. With Notes. The Prophecy of Dante, a Poem (1821) and Sardanapulus, A Tragedy. The Two Foscari, A Tragedy, Cain, A Mystery (1821) by Reginald Heber, Quarterly Review, 27 (July 1822), 476–524, was not the swingeing condemnation that Southey would have liked.
– & this last miserable business of entering into a defence of Shakespere, & of the system of Providence against the author of Cain?
(15)
Heber’s article in the Quarterly Review, 27 (July 1822), 479–487, defended English drama (not just Shakespeare) against Byron’s strictures; and Heber (pp. 514–524) defended orthodox Christianity against the arguments put forward by the characters in Byron’s Cain, especially on the issue of the compatibility of a supreme deity with the existence of evil.
– It was quite proper that the Liberal,
(16)
Byron’s The Vision of Judgment (1822), a parody of Southey’s A Vision of Judgement (1821), was first published in the Liberal, 1 (October 1822), 3–39.
& this tribute of adulation should make their appearance at the same time.
We have been edified at Church this morning with the new Marriage Act,
(17)
The Marriage Law Amendment Act (1822). This was an attempt to modify the Marriage Act (1753), which had annulled all marriages where the banns were not called in proper form, or the parties married without their parents’ consent if they were under twenty-one. The new law had faced severe opposition in the House of Lords and was encrusted with amendments deliberately designed to make it unworkable. Nevertheless, Phillimore, who had responsibility for the Bill in the House of Commons, had urged it should be passed to secure the point that previous marriages which contravened these rules, but whe…
– a production upon which I must not congratulate Phillimore, when I see him next. However I believe that the troublesome & absurd part of its enactments are none of his.
I am glad to hear from Peachy that Mr Awdry keep his situation.
(18)
John Awdry (1766–1844) was married to Jane, née Bigg-Wither (1770–1845), sister of Herbert Hill’s wife. Awdry was a solicitor and minor landowner, but he had also held the position of Receiver General of Land and Assessed Taxes for Wiltshire since 1804. In July 1822 a new law had reformed the procedures under which Receivers General were appointed and performed their roles.
– Bedford has lately succeeded to the highest situation in his department of the Exchequer,
(19)
James Fisher (c. 1758–1821), Chief Clerk in the Auditor’s Office, had died on 15 December 1821. Bedford duly succeeded Fisher as Chief Clerk 1822–1834, relinquishing his post of Clerk of Registers and Issues, which he had held since 1806.
– after one & thirty years service for it. He has got the prize for which he started, & it has made him very happy for the present.
We are all well, thank God, – but we had a frightful alarm for Cuthbert about a fortnight ago, – a croupish attack, combined with mumps. He is not as well as could be wished. – Love to my Aunt & the children
God bless you
RS.
