From 1816 to 1822 James Ballantyne had been simply Scott's paid manager. In 1822 Scott had again taken him into partnership, carefully defining the terms in a ‘missive letter’ (printed in the ‘Ballantyne Humbug’). He spoke of the business as ‘now so flourishing.’ Profits were to be equally divided; but Scott undertook to be personally responsible for bills then due by the firm to the amount of about 30,000l. This sum had been increased before the bankruptcy to about 46,000l. The substantial question in the controversy between Lockhart and Ballantyne's trustees was whether Scott or Ballantyne was mainly responsible for this accumulation of indebtedness. That Scott's extravagant expenditure contributed to the catastrophe is of course clear. Had he not wasted money at Abbotsford, he would have been able to put his business in a sound position. It is, however, disputed how far the accumulation of bills was caused by Ballantyne's shiftlessness or by Scott's direct drafts upon the business.
The Ballantyne connection had undoubtedly been a misfortune. James was inefficient and John reckless. They had apparently been in debt from the first, and had initiated Scott in the system of bill-discounting. Scott was in a thoroughly false position when he concealed himself behind his little court of flatterers rather than counsellors. He became involved in petty intrigues and reckless dealing in money. The failure of the publishing house, indeed, was due in great part to Scott's injudicious speculations. A debt apparently remained when the publishing was finally abandoned, in spite of Scott's ultimate disposal of the stock. The printing business, however, was sound, and made good profits even after the crash, under James Ballantyne's management (cf. Ballantyne Humbug, p. 109, and Reply, p. 118). Why, then, should the debt have continued to grow when, after 1816, the publishing had ceased? The new firm—that is, Scott—had taken over, according to Lockhart, some 10,000l. of the old liabilities, and this, if not paid off, would of course accumulate (Lockhart, ch. lii. p. 451n.) Ballantyne's trustees, however, argue that Scott's assumption of the debt in 1822 proves his consciousness that it had been created for his private purposes. They show conclusively that Scott was fully cognisant of all the bill transactions, and directing Ballantyne at every step in making provision for bills as they came due. When Scott had become aware of the entanglements of 1813, he had remonstrated energetically and done his best to clear them off. Could he have submitted to a repetition of the same process on behalf of the ‘flourishing (printing) business’ had he not been aware that the debt was being incurred for his own requirements? Lockhart wonders that Scott, who could have told what he had spent on turnpikes for thirty years, should never have looked into his own affairs. Scott was not so ignorant as Lockhart implies. He had apparently become accustomed to the bill-discounting, while he fully believed that he was investing the proceeds safely. Lockhart denies (Ballantyne Humbug, p. 94) that Scott drew sums from the business in behalf of his own private needs. But the accounts published by the trustees show that large sums had been advanced during the partnership (1822–1826) for Scott's building and other expenses. He had thus drawn out 15,000l. more than he had paid in. Scott, of course, was personally responsible for these sums; but he injured the firm by saddling it with a bad debt. Whatever, therefore, may have been Ballantyne's inefficiency, and the automatic accumulation of debt by renewing bills, it is hardly to be doubted that Scott encumbered the business by using it as his instrument in raising money for his own purposes. It belonged to him exclusively at the time when his outlay on Abbotsford was greatest, and he had been the real creator of the business. He seems to have spoken the simple truth when he told Lockhart on 20 Jan. 1826 that he had not suffered by Ballantyne: ‘I owe it to him to say that his difficulties, as well as his advantages, are owing to me.’
The Ballantynes also complain that the settlement of Abbotsford in January 1825 put the bulk of his property beyond the reach of his creditors, without, as they state, due notice to Ballantyne. Scott, as Lockhart urges, clearly imagined himself at this time to be perfectly solvent, and certainly did not in any way conceal the transaction, of which Constable at least was quite aware. Up to the last he seems to have felt not a trace of misgiving.
Whatever blame Scott may deserve, his action was henceforth heroic. He resolved not to become a bankrupt, but to carry on the business for the benefit of his creditors. ‘I will,’ he says (24 Jan. 1826), ‘be their vassal for life, and dig in the mine of my imagination to find diamonds … to make good my engagements, not to enrich myself.’ The creditors, with few exceptions, behaved generously throughout. On 26 Jan. he heard that they had unanimously agreed to the proposed private trust. An attack upon the settlement of Abbotsford was afterwards contemplated by some of them; and, accord-
