Letter from Charles Dolman to Daniel O'Connell acknowledging a receipt of money from O'Connell. Includes a signed receipt for same.

Letter from Charles Dolman, 61 Bond Street, London to Daniel O'Connell concerning an article on Orators for the 'Dublin Review'. Remarks that before No. XI can be published a decision about the future of the publication should be reached. Remarks that himself and Mr. Richards '...cannot individually run any further risk (having both already lost too much to justify us in so doing) unless the proposed plan or one similar be adopted...' Expresses the hope that O'Connell will transfer his share and interest in the stock and property of the 'Review' to him (Charles Dolman).

Letter from Charles Dolman, 61 Bond Street, London to Daniel O'Connell concerning the 'Dublin Review'. Remarks that he has not received an answer to a previous letter to Daniel O'Connell and that he can no longer delay the publication of the next issue of the 'Dublin Review'. Proposes to bring out the next issue himself '...I therefore beg to request you to inform me whether you make any objection to my doing so...In making this proposal you will understand that I do not intend to consider you liable in respect of that No. either for pecuniary loss or literary responsibility...' Concludes 'You will no doubt recollect that our agreement contains an undertaking on your part to use your best exertions to relieve Mr Richards and myself from such loss as we might sustain in this business...'

Letter from Charles Dolman, London to Daniel O'Connell concerning O'Connell's subscription to the Guarantee Fund of the 'Dublin Review' due for the years 1841 and 1842. Refers to heavy losses he has suffered as a result of the publication and that a different plan for the 'Dublin Review' has been arranged by Dr Wiseman whereby the authors of articles will receive '...the proceeds of the sales after paying the printing expenses - for their remuneration.'

Letter from Charles Dolman, London to Daniel O'Connell thanking him for his subscription. Expresses thanks for the support O'Connell is giving to the 'Dublin Review'. In particular he thanks O'Connell for recommending it to the clergy. Remarks 'For years past the principal reason of the circulation not being more extended is owing to the little support received from the Irish Clergy. Remarks that he will continue to promote and support the 'Dublin Review'.

Letter from John Cashel Hoey, 18 [Denleigh] Street, London, England to Dr Charles Russell concerning articles on Ireland becoming more prominent in the Dublin Review. Refers to an obituary he and Dr Manning are writing for 'the Cardinal' and asks for information '...he (Dr Manning) suggested that you and Mr Bagshawe are probably best acquainted with the facts of the Cardinal's connexion with the foundation and early conduct of the Review.'

A file of letters from Fr Nicholas Wiseman (later Cardinal) to Dr Charles Russell. Includes a letter remarking that due to ill health he cannot edit the next issue of the Dublin Review. Remarks that he has been in contact with Thomas Richardson regarding the impending ownership of the Dublin Review 'Let us get over this one crisis more and please God the Review will be safe. Richardson is determined to push it, it will succeed.' ([ ]1844, 7pp). Includes a letter remarking 'Richardson takes the 'Review' upon our terms...I feel confident...that in his hands the 'Review' will be pushed forward very differently from the past.' Remarks that he hopes Dr. Russell '...may be able to get your friends to write for us.' Concludes 'If the [secret] history of the D.R. were known to the public how strange it would appear - so often in the pains of sinking yet always rescued.' ([ ] 1844, 6pp). Discusses potential articles for the Dublin Review (27 April 1846, 4pp). Refers to the quality of articles appearing in the Review and remarks 'The Review is not deep. It wants some more reasoning and original articles...As for my own article...I ran off the rails and could not bring out what I wanted. Let us get something good for next time.' (2 October 1952, 2pp). Refers again to the type of articles published by the Review. Remarks 'Do you think we are getting into too few hands? Ward, De Morgan, Christie, Newman, Allies etc. have written for us...surely the convert element ought to be more cultivated and I must own I believe the fault lies in our having a mere business editor and no recognised literary one who enjoys the confidence of our learned men. I see the growing narrowness of our work and deplore it. Never a paper on Physics, Astronomical discoveries, Chemistry, Electricity, Steam, Railroads, Physiology, Medicine, Geology, Botany, Law Reform nor even on Politics in the wider sense. Never any article on foreign countries except the bleak north - I mean an original paper. W. B. cannot possibly attend to getting people to write and he has no influence. We shall never do as we ought till something is done to widen our range of topics and writers (18 February 1853, 8pp). Refers to a letter he has written to Dr Newman concerning the Dublin Review and '...begging of him not to enter into any plans for a new Review as we might get all we wanted out of our present one.' (3 January 1857, 3pp). Discusses the unsatisfactory situation regarding the publisher of the Dublin Review. Remarks 'I am satisfied that our only chance of success is a new publisher. If this is not feasible the 'Review' must drop for we cannot possibly go on in the present unsatisfactory manner.' Refers to a 'coalition' with the Rambler and remarks this is impossible. (11 April 1862, 4pp).

Memorandum of Agreement between Dr Nicholas Wiseman, St. Mary's College, near Birmingham and Thomas Richardson and Son, Printers and Publishers, Derby concerning the Dublin Review. The Agreement sets out the terms and conditions for Thomas Richardson and son to become the sole and exclusive proprietors and publishers of the Dublin Review from the 34th issue. Eight conditions are listed in the Agreement.