Albany, July 20, 1842. DEAR NAPIER, --I do not like to disappoint you; and I really would try to send you something if I could think of a subject that would suit me. It ought to be something which would require no reading. My objections to taking Romilly's Life for a subject are numerous. One of them is that I was

not acquainted with him, and never heard him speak except once for a few minutes when I was a child. A stranger who writes a description of a person whom hundreds still living knew intimately, is almost certain to make mistakes; and even if he makes no absolute mistake, his portrait is not likely to be thought a striking resemblance by those who knew the original. It is like making a bust from description. The best sculptor must disappoint those who remember the real face. I felt this even about Lord Holland, and nothing but Lady Holland's request would have overcome my unwillingness to say anything about his Parliamentary speaking, which I had never heard. I had, however, known him familiarly in private; but Romilly I never saw except in the House of Commons.

I thought once of trying Professor Sewell's Lectures on Moral Philosophy, an unutterably absurd specimen of Puseyism, -far below the level of Sir Thomas Filmer. I do not remember that you have had any article on that subject. I think that I could make the Oxonian Ethics rather ridiculous. If you like this notion, and will desire Longman to send me the book, I will see what can be made of it.

You do not quite apprehend the nature of my plan about the old Roman ballads, but the explanation will come fast enough. I wish from my soul that I had written a volume of my History, I have not written half a volume; nor do I consider what I have done as more than rough-hewn.

I am just about to write to Lord John, and I will plainly tell him what you and I also wish. Austin's article, though I do not very much like it, has succeeded pretty well. Stephen's [Ignatius Loyola] is good undoubtedly, but not so good as some of his have been. I thought the article in the Quarterly on the Encyclopædia very handsome. But in truth 1 Art. 11, June, 1812-" The Encyclopædia Britannica.”

1

both parties had contributed to that great collection, and to attack it would have been to attack all the English literature of the age. I hear with some concern that Dickens is going to publish a most furious book against the Yankees. I am told that all the Fearons, Trollopes, Marryats, and Martineaus together have not given them half as much offence as he will give.-Ever yours, T. B. MACAULAY.

Albany, July 25, 1842.

DEAR NAPIER,-I have just heard from Lord John. I may as well send you what he has written. Of course you will say nothing about the literary plan which he mentions. You might, I think, with perfect propriety write to him yourself, if you have anything to suggest. By the bye, I forgot to say that I wish Dickens's book on the United States to be kept for me. I have never written a word on that subject, and I have a great deal in my head. Of course I shall be courteous to Dickens, whom I know, and whom I think both a man of genius and a good-hearted man, in spite of some faults of taste.-Yours ever, T. B. MACAULAY.

P.S. What say you to Palmerston? He writes excellently. Shall I mention it to him, or will you?

JAMES STEPHEN.

Clifton, July 27, 1842.

MY DEAR MR. NAPIER,-Nothing but some unforeseen and insuperable hindrance will prevent my fulfilling early in September my engagement about Taylor's book. But it will not answer as a leading subject or corner stone. It is too good to be made into a mere peg on which to hang disquisitions, and it is not good enough to be made the text for a very long discourse. I am bound to acknowledge that Austin is to my mind extremely fatiguing. I have no great love for such subjects, especially when they are handled with the formal divisions and tone in which preachers construct their sermons. Yet I hear that Senior (an incomparably better judge) extols it highly. To myself it reads like the

1 "Edwin the Fair."

composition of a man who had passed his whole life in a college or lecture-room. I am very sorry to think so, for I have a special regard for him and her, and in conversation I really know not a more interesting or eloquent man. I could make, and I have heard criticisms on my own contribution1 much more difficult to repel than those you mention. Yet, on the whole, my conclusion is, that it has interested those who have read it, which perhaps is in this style of writing the condition of all others the most important to fulfil. Tell me (and tell me with the most absolute sincerity) whether you would think it prudent to resume the subject of the Jesuits, especially with reference to their quarrel with the Jansenists. Perhaps you and I might be accused of Jesuitism, for it is my creed that their faults have been enormously exaggerated, and this is unpopular, and might be dangerous ground. If this be not a fatal objection, the subject itself has the recommendation of being curious, and in a certain sense new. have just received an odd book, or rather a book on an odd subject, of which something might be made. It is an imitation of George Herbert's Country Parson, and professes to exhibit the ideal character of an Advocate. That again is a matter not very familiar to the multitude, and capable of many pleasant illustrations, especially from the list of French, Scotch, and Irish Lawyers. You see that I am desirous to help you by suggestions, of which kind of aid I suspect you have more than enough.-Ever most truly yours,

J. STEPHEN.

I

HENRY ROGERS.

Birmingham, August 16, 1842.

MY DEAR SIR,-I herewith send you the larger portion of the article on the "Right of Private Judgment," respecting 2 which we corresponded some months ago. I honestly confess I think the article on the whole the best I have sent you; but it by no means follows that you will think so. I well know how signally incompetent authors often are to judge of

1 66

Ignatius Loyola and his Associates," July, 1842. 2 Art. 4, January, 1843.

their own compositions. If your opinion, therefore, should be unfavourable, I beg you will make no scruple of summarily rejecting me. Such has been your uniform kindness and courtesy, that I shall at once feel convinced that if you could have done otherwise you would, and that what is done, is done because you deem that your public duty demands it. You see I at least am not disposed to call in question the "Right of Private Judgment."

I told you that I should probably not even name the various writers on whose opinions I proposed animadverting. I found it impossible to adhere to this; it would neither have been just to my own argument, nor satisfactory to the reader, who might in some places think that the writer was dealing with imaginary antagonists. With regard to the writer in the British Critic, whom I suspect to be Newman, I have shown him no mercy, and I am sure he deserves none. After reading what I have cited from him, I am sure you will agree with me. Whether it be quite according to rule, to make, in one periodical publication, such free remarks on a writer in another, I know not, but I believe there are precedents which justify it, and I am confident that if ever it were justifiable it is in the present case. What can be said of a man who avows his downright, hearty, stupid preference of the ancient system of persecution in the year 1841, and "confesses his satisfaction at the infliction of penalties for a change of religious opinion!" Ought etiquette to protect such unspeakable extravagance? The other writers whose opinions I have chiefly noticed, are Mr. Gladstone, and the Authors of the Tracts. In the latter parts of the article, I found it impossible (while striving to keep the logic as close as possible), to avoid giving the whole a ludicrous air. But I do not think the article will be either the worse or the less useful for that. You are happily free in Scotland from the "Puseyite priest with his little volume of nonsense," as Sydney Smith happily phrases it; but I assure you the faction is doing immense mischief in England; they are really getting thousands to acquiesce with unreasoning credulity in all their absurd pretensions, merely by dint of gravely and solemnly asserting

them. In no public organ whatever can their doctrines be so powerfully or appropriately counteracted as in your Journal, and if I am not able to do anything worthy of the cause, I am happy to think you have many who are.-Yours most truly,

HENRY ROGERS.

T. B. MACAULAY.

Albany, August 30, 1842. DEAR NAPIER, I had a short talk about the Edinburgh Review with Palmerston just before he left London. I found him irresolute; and we were interrupted by other people before we finished what we had to say. I have since written to him, and I send you his answer, from which you will see in what state his mind is upon this subject. I told him, what is quite true, that there were some public men of high distinction whom I would never counsel to write, both with a view to the interests of the Review and to their own; but that he was in no danger of losing by his writings any part of the credit which he had acquired by speech and action. I was quite sincere in this, for he writes excellently.-Ever T. B. MACAULAY.

yours,

LORD PALMERSTON.

Brocket Hall, October 13, 1842. DEAR SIR, I have a great many apologies to make to you for not having sooner answered the letter which I received from you some time ago, inviting me to contribute to the Edinburgh Review. I can assure you that I felt much flattered by your communication, and that my delay in replying to you has been partly occasioned by my unwillingness to decline so tempting an offer as long as I thought that I might have a chance of being able to avail myself of it. Though I have found from day to day my avocations and employments continuing to occupy all my time, I have, nevertheless, hoped that I might look forward to more leisure by and by; but I now see that the case becomes desperate, and that I have no prospect of being able to send you anything that would be worth inserting in your admirable Review.

D d