for some of which this Byron, if you liked it, were a fit enough channel. Dilettantism and mere toying with truth is, on the whole, a thing which I cannot practise; nevertheless real love, real belief, is not inconsistent with tolerance of its opposite; nay, is the only thing consistent therewith-for your elegant indifferente is at heart only idle, selfish, and quite intolerant. At all events, one can and should ever speak quietly; loud hysterical vehemence, foaming, and hissing, least of all beseems him that is convinced, and not only supposes, but knows. So much to cast some faint light for you on my plan of procedure, and what you have to look for in employing me. Let me only further request that if you, for whatever reason, do not like this proposal, you will without shadow of scruple tell me so. Frankness is best met by frankness; the practice presupposes the approval. I have been thinking sometimes, likewise, of a paper on Napoleon, a man whom, though handled to the extreme of triteness, it will be long years before we understand. Hitherto in the English tongue, there is next to nothing that betokens insight into him, or even sincere belief of such, on the part of the writer. I should like to study the man with what heartiness I could, and form to myself some intelligible picture of him, both as a biographical and as a historical figure, in both of which senses he is our chief contemporary wonder, and in some sort the epitome of his age. This, however, were a task of far more difficulty than Byron, and perhaps not so promising at present. Have the goodness to let me know by your first convenience, what you think of this; not hesitating to say Fiat or Ne fiat; and believe me always faithfully yours, THOMAS CARLYLE. T. B. MACAULAY. London, November 27, 1830. MY DEAR SIR,-I have only a minute to write. I will send you an article on the Jews next week, Sadler as soon as he comes out. He does not know what a reason is, and all H his boasts and anticipations of victory only prove that he does not. I do most earnestly hope that Jeffrey will take office. I am best as I am. You will be glad to hear, I am sure, that the Calne petition was decided in my favour yesterday. You will see that I gave Croker a dressing the other night in Brougham's defence. I was in no good humour with B. But the insufferable impertinence and poltroonery of Croker exasperated me beyond all patience. I am thought to have had the best of the battle by our critics here.2 As to the ballot, I have not yet absolutely made up my own mind. Much nonsense is talked for it, and much against it. I am sorry that you have nothing this month from Jeffrey. Our Lord Chancellor will do little more for us, I suspect.— Ever yours, T. B. M. London, December 17, 1830. MY DEAR SIR,-I send you an article on the Jews. Sadler's book is out, but I have not seen it yet. When I have read it, I will let you know whether I think it worth. an answer. If I do, I suppose there will be time to prepare it for this Number. I am very busy, or I should have sent you this Jew article before. It is short, and carelessly written, perhaps, as to style, but certainly as to penmanship. I am in hourly expectation of hearing what arrangement is made for bringing Jeffrey into Parliament. I am most impatient to hear him there. My French History, the House of Commons, and the Bankrupts, have almost killed me between them. I have not the Chancellor's encyclopædic mind. He is indeed a kind of semi-Solomon. He half knows The Grey Administration was formed in November, 1830: Jeffrey was made Lord Advocate, but Macaulay received no place from the Whigs till 1832. 2 The following is an extract from Macaulay's reply to Croker on the occasion referred to:-"I owe no allegiance to the Noble Lord [Brougham] who has been transferred to another place; but I cannot banish from my memory the extraordinary eloquence of that Noble person-an eloquence which has left nothing equal to it behind; and when I behold the departure of that great man from amongst us, and when I see the place in which he sat, and from which he has so often astonished us by the mighty powers of his mind, occupied by the honourable member [Croker] who commenced this debate, I cannot express the feelings and the emotions to which such circumstances give rise." "Refutation of an Article in the Edinburgh Review, No. 102." everything from the cedar to the hyssop. You see that he LORD BROUGHAM. Court of Chancery, December 18, 1830. MY DEAR PROFESSOR,-Don't be on any ceremony, but remit me the money in your own way. And now as to Review matters, which must be extremely secret between us henceforth. I shall have my evenings to myself now. find my work not half what it was at the Bar. Therefore, as long as I can work to help the principles I profess and hold, I shall work by pen as well as tongue, and all the more that I no longer can speak to the people, through either H. of Commons or public meetings. I attend our Society's meetings regularly, and take a larger share than formerly in its labours. I only require all I write to be copied by trusty clerks before printing.-Yours ever, H. B. T. B. MACAULAY. London, December 25, 1830. MY DEAR SIR,-I send you an answer to Sadler.' I think I have completely settled the question by my calculations on his own tables. If you do not think it a satisfactory answer, do not print it. I will be absolutely governed in this matter by you, as it has taken something of a personal shape, from the tone of Sadler's pamphlet; and I have no wish to bring the Review into a scrape on my account. If you have seen his pamphlet, you will not wonder at the occasional sharpness 1 66 Sadler's Refutation, Refuted." of expression which I have employed.--Let me have the proofsheets. It is absolutely necessary that I should look again over the numbers.-Ever yours most truly, T. B. MACAULAY. London, January 11, 1831. MY DEAR NAPIER,-I send back the proofs [of article on Sadler]. Your story is excellent, and excellently told. I have a little altered the structure of the first paragraph, in order that the patch may not be discernible. I hope that my corrections will not confuse the printer's devil. I have, as you will see, substituted a new table for one which I sent you. The case is a stronger one. I have written my addition in a most clerk-like hand. I have cut out the last sentence as you desired. If anything in the way of personality offends you, blot it out without scruple. I had much rather that, in a case of private provocation, you should judge for me, than that I should judge for myself. If you could, I should very much wish that you would revise a second proof before the article goes finally to press. Much depends on the accuracy of the printing. If you will guarantee that, I guarantee the arithmetic. I am worked to death with writing and reading, and have not had a day of rest at Christmas.Ever yours, T. B. MACAULAY. London, February 12, 1831. MY DEAR NAPIER,-People here think that I have answered Sadler completely-at least those who have spoken to me on the subject think so: and if no fault in the arithmetic can be discovered, I do not see how any doubt can exist on the matter. Empson tells me that Malthus is well pleased, which is a good sign. As to Blackwood's trash, I could not get through it. It bore the same relation to Sadler's pamphlet that a bad hash bears to a bad joint. It is too much, after being nauseated with such an odious dish, to have it served up again in such a rifacciamento. As far as I looked at it, I saw My father gave Macaulay the anecdote of Heron, with which he commences the article on Sadler. nothing original,-nothing that was not in Sadler's pamphlet. Is it possible that such stuff can be Wilson's? I shall not, I fear, be able to do much for the next Number. But I will try to do something. I do not like to review Moore-in the first place, because I am no great admirer of his hero; and in the next place, because the topic is a little hackneyed. I cannot imagine from what quarter you can have heard that I thought of reviewing Lardner's Cyclopædia. I do not remember that anybody ever mentioned it to me. Lardner, I recollect, spoke to me warmly of Herschel's treatise on Natural Philosophy, and expressed a wish that it were well reviewed. But I never dreamed that he could mean to propose it to me, who knows nothing about Natural Know/ Philosophy. It is, as far as I can judge, a very able perform- THOMAS CARLYLE. January 20, 1831. MY DEAR SIR,-This paper on poor Taylor1 being finished, I may as well send it off. I have studied to conform to your directions in one important point at least-in length; though having been sore afflicted all the way with bad pens, I have |