Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 51.djvu/105

 Scott was at this time helping the widow and children of his brother Thomas (d. 1824). The son Walter went to India as an engineer, became a general, and died in 1873 (Letters, ii. 363, &c.).

Meanwhile the speculative fever, which culminated in the crisis of 1825–6, was reaching its height. Constable and Cadell found themselves in difficulties in the autumn. Hurst, Robinson, & Co., their London agents, with whom they had many transactions, were hard pressed, having, it is said, indulged, among other things, in a large speculation upon hops. In November Lockhart heard a report that Constable's London banker had ‘thrown up his book.’ He told Scott, who was incredulous, but drove at once to Constable by night, and came back with the news that the business was ‘as firm as Benlomond.’ Scott's alarm gave the first hint to his family of the closeness of the connection with Ballantyne. His subsequent history is fully told in the ‘Journal’ which he began to keep at this time. Though freely used by Lockhart, its publication in full in 1890 first revealed the full interest of this most pathetic piece of autobiography. In December Scott was seriously alarmed, and at the end of the year borrowed 10,000l. which his son's settlement empowered him to raise upon Abbotsford. This, he thought, would make Ballantyne secure, but he was anxious about Constable. A severe attack of illness at Christmas was aggravated by anxiety. In January Constable, after a delay from illness, went to London, and found that matters were almost desperate. Among other schemes for borrowing, he proposed that Scott should raise 20,000l. Scott, with Cadell's advice, absolutely refused, saying that he had advanced enough for other people's debts, and must now pay his own. This led to Scott's later alliance with Cadell, who had fallen out with his old partner. On 16 Jan. Scott received decisive news of the stoppage of payment by Hurst & Robinson, which involved the fall of Constable and of Ballantyne. He dined that day with Skene, apparently in his usual spirits. Next morning, before going to the court, he told Skene that he was a beggar, and that his ruin must be made public. He felt ‘rather sneaking’ when he showed himself in court. Cockburn (Memorials, p. 431) says that there was no feeling but sympathy. When some of his friends talked of raising money, he replied, ‘No, this right hand shall work it all off.’ In spite of business, he wrote a chapter of ‘Woodstock’ every day that week, finishing ‘twenty printed pages’ on the 19th.

The liabilities of Constable, according to Lockhart, amounted to 256,000l., those of Hurst, Robinson, & Co. to near 300,000l., and those of Ballantyne & Co. to 117,000l. The first two firms became bankrupt and paid 2s. 6d. and 1s. 3d. in the pound respectively. Much controversy followed, with little definite results, as to the apportionment of responsibility for this catastrophe. The immediate cause was the system of accommodation between the firms of Constable and Ballantyne. Sir J. Gibson Craig, who was thoroughly acquainted with the facts, throws the chief blame on Scott. Craig was in Constable's confidence from the first difficulties of 1813. Though a strong whig, he behaved generously as one of Scott's chief creditors. Constable's loss, according to him, originated ‘in a desire to benefit Scott, which Sir Walter had always the manliness to acknowledge.’ Constable had supported the Ballantynes, but had found it necessary to take bills from them in order to protect himself. When affairs became serious, he took all these bills to Scott, offering to exchange them for those granted to Scott. Scott being unable to do this, Constable was forced to discount the bills, and upon his insolvency Scott became responsible for both sets of bills, thus incurring a loss of about 40,000l. A similar statement is made by Lockhart, and no doubt represents the facts, though Lockhart's version is disputed by Ballantyne's trustees (Craig's letter of 1848 in, iii. 456–7, and a fuller letter to Miss Edgeworth of 1832 communicated by Mr. A. Constable).

Constable was a shrewd man of business, and engaged in speculations sound in themselves and ultimately profitable. It is, however, abundantly clear that, from want of sufficient capital, he was from the first obliged to raise credit on terms which, as his partner Cadell said, ‘ran away with all their gains.’ Cadell was anxious in 1822 to retire in consequence of his anxieties (, Murray, i. 185, &c.;, iii. 236). Though Constable's regard for Scott was undoubtedly genuine, his advances meant that he was anxious to monopolise the most popular author of the day, and the profit on the ‘Waverley Novels’ was a main support of his business. He was therefore both ready to supply Scott with credit and anxious not to alarm him by making difficulties. Scott was completely taken by surprise when Constable failed. ‘No man,’ he says (Journal, 29 Jan. 1826), ‘thought (Constable's) house worth less than 150,000l.’ Had Constable stood, Scott would have stood too. The problem remains why Scott should not have been independent of Constable.