Yours,

B.D.

Mr. Disraeli to John Murray.

MY DEAR SIR,

I am very glad to receive the copy.  I think that one should be sent to the editor of the Times as quickly as possible; that at least he should not be anticipated in the receipt, even if in the notice, by a Sunday paper.  But I leave all this to your better judgment.  You will send copies to Duke Street as soon as you have them.

B.D.

After the article in the Times had appeared, Baron de Haber, a mysterious German gentleman of Jewish extraction, who had taken part in the production of “Gallomania,” wrote to Mr. Murray: 

Baron de Haber to John Murray.

2 Mai, 1832.

MON CHER MONSIEUR,

J’espere que vous serez content de l’article de Times sur la “Gallomania.”  C’est un grand pas de fait.  Il serait utile que le Standard et le Morning Post le copie en entier, avec des observations dans son sens.  C’est a vous, mon cher Monsieur Murray, de soigner cet objet.  J’ai infiniment regrette de ne m’etre pas trouve chez moi hier, lorsque vous etes venu me voir, avec l’aimable Mr. Lockhart.

Tout a vous,

DE H.

Baron de Haber to John Murray.

Vendredi.

MON CHER MONSIEUR MURRAY,

Vous desirez dans l’interet de l’ouvrage faire mentionner dans le Standard que le Times d’aujourd’hui paroit etre assez d’accord avec l’auteur de la “Gallomania” sur M. Thiers, esperant que de jour en jour il reviendra aux idees de cet auteur.

Il seroit aussi convenable de dire que la prophetie dans la lettre a My Lord Grey etait assez juste:  Allusion—­“In less than a month we shall no doubt hear of their warm reception in the Provinces, and of some gratifying, perhaps startling, demonstrations of national gratitude.”  Voyez, mon cher Monsieur, comme depuis 8 jours ces pauvres Deputes qui ont vote pour le Ministre sont traites, Si vous etes a la maison ce soir, dites-le-moi, je desire vous parler.  Dinez-vous chez-vous?

Votre devoue,

DE H.

The following announcement was published by Mr. Disraeli in reply to certain criticisms of his work: 

“I cannot allow myself to omit certain observations of my able critic without remarking that those omissions are occasioned by no insensibility to their acuteness.

“Circumstances of paramount necessity render it quite impossible that anything can proceed from my pen hostile to the general question of Reform.

“Independent however of all personal considerations, and viewing the question of Reform for a moment in the light in which my critic evidently speculates, I would humbly suggest that the cause which he advocates would perhaps be more united in the present pages by being passed over in silence.  It is important that this work should be a work not of party but of national interest, and I am induced to believe that a large class in this country, who think themselves bound to support the present administration from a superficial sympathy with their domestic measures, have long viewed their foreign policy with distrust and alarm.