I had hired a small moor at Ballachulish from Cameron, the innkeeper there. Maclean of Ardgour, to whom it belonged, lent me a keeper and some dogs. The hills were steep, the shooting bad; but the life there most agreeable. I went down on August 3rd. W. Wallace was with us; and on the 5th we were installed at Ballachulish for six weeks. They were spent in shooting, sea-fishing, boating, &c. Fairfax Taylor [Footnote: Son of John Edward Taylor; see ante, p. 117.] came, and Longman. The Trevelyans Fyfes, and Forsters were at the hotel on the other side of the ferry. We were there forty-five days. I went back to town by Greenock on September 21st.

Meanwhile the course of the war was most eventful. On August 6th the battle of Woerth was won by the Prussians, followed by a series of French defeats. On September 2nd Macmahon and the Emperor capitulated at Sedan. William Forster was at Ballachulish, and, as despatches were sent from the F. O. to cabinet ministers, we learnt the fact from him at 8.30 P.M. on September 3rd. Gladstone, though prime minister, volunteered to write an article in the 'Review' on the war, which he did. I kept the secret, but it leaked out through the 'Daily News' on November 3rd, and made a great noise. The 'silver streak' was in that article.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, July 29th.—Among the many bad actions described in history, there is one which is very rare; it is the artifice of a tempter who throws the blame of his attempt at seduction upon the person who rejected it, perhaps after listening to it. But this is what Bismarck has done. You have probably not forgotten what happened in 1868, and what I wrote about it at the time, in the 'Revue des deux Mondes' of September 15th. I take pleasure in here quoting my own words:—

'It is said that M. de Bismarck attempted to engage France on the side of Prussia; and, in order to tempt the Imperial Government, offered to remodel Europe as well as Germany, and to give France a large share in this redistribution of nations. I do not know how much truth there was in these rumours, which so deeply moved Belgium and Holland, amongst others; I will not stop to discuss reports and suppositions. However this may be, if such offers were really made, Napoleon III. did wisely in refusing them; he did not raise himself to the throne as a victorious warrior, and France has no longer a passion for conquest. But did he, in refusing, do all he could to stop or restrain Prussia in the ambitious course into which M. de Bismarck was forcing her, and to influence the reorganisation of Germany according to the legitimate interests of France? I do not think so; but I put this question also on one side,' &c. &c.

I need not say that I did not lightly credit the rumours of the overtures made by Bismarck to the French Government; they were not only widespread and believed by those who had the best information, but my friends in Holland sent me precise details, and I immediately got the 'Journal des Debats' to publish an article which treated this attempted temptation as it deserved, and pointed out the honourable and pacific policy which France ought to follow on this occasion. I have reason to think that men of good sense in the French Government, who were trying to make the policy of law and peace prevail, congratulated themselves on being thus loudly upheld and encouraged.

Never forget, 'my dear sir,' what the position of the friends of law and peace is in our general policy. You must some time have read Buerger's ballad of the 'Wild Huntsman,' founded on the legend of a certain nobleman, on the banks of the Rhine, a great hunter, who, if I mistake not, could never mount his horse for the chase without being accompanied, on either side, by a good and a bad angel, one urging him to follow the beaten track, and respect the rights of property, the other urging him to rush across the fields, trampling down harvest, gardens, and passers-by, careless of what injury he inflicted.

For a long time France, both as to her Government and her people, has been in the position of this hunter, always accompanied by the two angels; all that has happened in France and in Europe during the last eighty years has put us in that position, and it is sometimes the good angel, sometimes the bad, which has made itself heard, and has seemed on the point of becoming the hunter's master. There is not a right-minded and sensible man in Europe who has not endeavoured to help the good angel and defeat the efforts of the wicked tempter.

In my opinion, the Imperial Government was wrong in not accepting the withdrawal of the candidateship of the Prince of Hohenzollern; a withdrawal announced by the Prince himself, accepted by the King of Prussia, and accepted and officially communicated to France by the Spanish Government. This was held to be insufficient satisfaction for France, though I think neither necessity nor prudence called for a second demand, which offended the pride of all parties; and the manner in which it was rejected has destroyed the last chance of peace. Till that moment, the good angel had prevailed; but now the bad angel is speaking. But if there is one man in Europe who cannot avail himself of this blunder to rid himself of the responsibility of war, that man is surely the tempter of 1868....

To Mr. Dempster

Ballachulish, August 14th.—As it is entirely to you that we owe our residence in this enchanting place, it would be very ungrateful not to tell you how much we are enjoying it. I think it is by far the most picturesque spot in all Scotland; and ever since we arrived, ten days ago, the sea has been as blue as the Aegean, and the hills as clear as the isles of Greece. Not one cloud or shower in ten days, but the heat so great that we find shooting arduous work. There is not much game, but I am better off than most of my neighbours, who complain loudly. I think I can insure any day five or six brace. It certainly is not a good year, nor is this a grouse country.... I think, whatever else this war may bring about, it has finished the Empire and the Emperor, and so far I rejoice; but I confess I have no sympathy at all with the Prussians.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, September 10th.—I am just up, my dear Sir, having been in bed for a fortnight. Grief and indignation are unhealthy at eighty-three. I am better, and only wish I was as sure of the convalescence of France as of my own. It is true that France has before her more time for recovery than I have.

I will say nothing of the fallen Empire. I should say more than is seemly and less than is true. Never was fall more deserved, more necessary, and more absolute.

Neither will I say anything of the new Government. It is what it professes to be, a power pledged to defend the country. A national constituent Assembly has just been convoked, and meanwhile everything will be done to preserve the honour and integrity of France. This, for the present, is the one idea and the one passion of the whole country, especially of Paris. I hope that the deeds will correspond to the passion.

There are two points on which, in spite of my present weakness, I wish to give you my opinion at once, so as to awaken your interest, and the interest of all the friends of European order and of France now in England.

There is much to be regretted in the general policy of Europe since 1815. Many faults have been committed which might have been avoided, many improvements which might have been made have been miscalculated or have passed as dreams. But throughout this age, and for more than half a century, rising above all faults and blunders, royal or popular, diplomatic or parliamentary, one great and novel fact has dominated the policy of Europe—there has been no question of a war of ambition and of conquest; no State has attempted to aggrandise itself by force at the expense of other States; [Footnote: Guizot's enthusiasm or patriotism here led him into a somewhat reckless assertion. In point of fact, there was not one of the great Continental Powers which, during the previous fifty years, had not 'attempted to aggrandise itself by force,' and, necessarily, 'at the expense of other States.' With the exception of Austria, they had done more than 'attempt'—they had effected the aggrandisement.] respect for peace and the law of nations has become a ruling maxim of international policy. When internal revolution in any State has rendered territorial changes necessary, these changes have been recognised and accepted only after the examination and consent of Europe. Belgium and Greece have taken rank as European States only by the putting on one side all the yearnings of French, Russian, or English ambition. And when, in 1844 and 1848, the Emperor Nicholas, in his familiar interviews with your ambassador at St. Petersburg, proposed that Russia and England should act in concert, and by joint conquest, as he said, put an end to the decrepitude of the Ottoman Empire, two English ministers, Lord Aberdeen and Lord John Russell, to their great honour, rejected any such idea, as an outrage on the law of nations, and the peace of Europe.

I have no hesitation in affirming, my dear Sir, that this is the greatest and most salutary feature of the first half of this century, and has contributed more than anything else to the revival of principles of equity and justice in the relations between governments and their people, to the increased prosperity of different nations, and to the progress of civilisation in the world. And, new as its rule yet is, this fact has been sufficient to stop, or at least to check in their evil developements, the noxious germs of an ambitious and violent policy, revivified in Europe by the revolutionary crises of 1848. Temptations have certainly not been wanting to governments and parties since that date. But in 1848 the French Republic respected the peace of Europe and the law of nations; in 1852 the French Empire hastened to declare that it was peace; and when, leaving that, she threw herself into the Italian war, is it credible that she would have been contented with Nice and Savoy as the price of the support she gave to the Italians if she had not been restrained by the good modern principle of European policy, the condemnation of the spirit of ambition and conquest? [Footnote: Not to speak of the chance of having to deal with Prussia. Cf. ante, p. 27.]

It is this legitimate and guiding principle which is at present ignored, attacked, and in great danger. I have no intention of entering here upon the question of German unity, or of inquiring how far the consequences of Sadowa are to be attributed to the real and spontaneous effort of national sentiment amongst the Germans. I waive all discussion on this point.

I do not suppose anyone will say that in this great German event Prussian ambition had no share, or that force and conquest did not act side by side with the impulse of national sentiment. But I do not now meddle with what has been done in Germany; that has nothing in common with the present pretensions of Prussia to Alsace and Lorraine. Have these provinces given any manifestation, any appearance, of a desire to be included in the German unity? Is not the Prussian policy in this openly and exclusively a policy of ambition and of conquest, such as would have been followed, from more or less specious motives of royal or national selfishness, by Louis XIV. in the seventeenth, by Frederick II. in the eighteenth, by Napoleon I. in the nineteenth century? such as the modern publicists and moralists have so often condemned and fought against? such, in fine, as all nations, in all ages—and especially Europe in our own times—have so cruelly suffered from? I say no more. I should be ashamed to insist upon what is so clear.

I have nothing to do with Utopian ideas. I do not believe in perpetual peace, nor in the absolute rule of the law of nations as affecting the rivalries of governments and the facts of history. I know that ambitious intrigue and violent enterprise will always have a part in the destinies of nations. I only ask that ambition and force shall not be permitted to take that part, controlled only by their own will. At least they ought to be recognised for what they are, and called by their right names; their claims, and the results of them, ought to be placed face to face with the policy of peace and the law of nations; and, lastly, it ought not to be forgotten that this, the only durable and good policy, has prevailed in Europe for half a century, and that it would be shameful and unfortunate to allow it to fall undefended before the first success of the old policy of ambition and conquest.

In the severe and dangerous trial which she is now undergoing, France may strengthen herself with the thought that her present and personal policy is in exact agreement with the European policy of peace and the law of nations. France has no ambition, no remote designs or secret aim; she asks for nothing; she is defending her rights, her honour, and her territory. Will the Powers, who have hitherto proclaimed their neutrality, assist her by assisting to maintain the European policy of peace and the law of nations? I shall be surprised if they do not, the more so as they could do it without seriously compromising themselves. If their intervention by force of arms were necessary, it would undoubtedly be at once effective; but any such necessity is quite out of the question; the neutral Powers are stronger than they themselves are perhaps aware, and their moral strength is amply sufficient. Let them plainly assert their disapproval of this attack on the territorial integrity of France; and in support of their disapproval, let them declare that, in any case, they will not recognise any change in the territory of France which France herself will not accept. It is my deep and firm conviction that this would be sufficient to put an end to any such attempt, and to check the policy of ambition and conquest, without which the peace of Europe cannot be re-established. Is France to be left alone to sustain this great and good cause at all risks? or will the neutral Powers, without any great risk to themselves, give her such support as will ensure her triumph? It is for the Powers to answer this question. I am very old to be surprised at anything; and yet I should be surprised if England did not see the greatness of the part she is called upon to play under existing circumstances. For many years she sustained in Europe, by war, the policy of respect for the laws of nations; will she not uphold it to-day by peace?

Adieu, my dear Sir, je suis fatigue. Je vais me coucher, et tout a vous,

GUIZOT.

Should you think proper to make any use of this letter, either by privately showing it to anyone, or by giving it a wider publicity, I have no objection. I leave the question of fitness and opportunity in England to you. For my part, my only wish is that my opinions and sentiments in this important crisis should be well known both in France and England.

The following note is endorsed by Reeve 'Due d'Aumale on the capitulation of Sedan,' which took place on September 2nd. It is, however, impossible to suppose that the Due d'Aumale did not hear of an event so astounding till three weeks after it had happened, and the note probably refers more immediately to the occupation of Versailles by the Prussians under the Crown Prince, on September 20th, or the reported arrival on the 23rd of General Bourbaki at Chislehurst, to consult with the Empress about the surrender of Metz. The endorsement was most likely written some time afterwards, and in momentary forgetfulness of the date.

From the Due d'Aumale

Orleans House, 23 septembre.

Cher Monsieur,—-Jamais je n'aurais cru que je vivrais assez pour voir un pareil jour. Vous devinez tout ce que mon coeur eprouve.

Vous etes du bien petit nombre de ceux avec qui il m'est possible de causer en ce moment, et vous me ferez du bien si vous venez dejeuner ici dimanche prochain, 25, a midi 1/2. Mille amities,

H. D'ORLEANS.

From Lord Granville

Walmer Castle, October 2nd.

My dear Reeve,—I was very sorry to miss an opportunity of seeing you twice last week. Our hours are late, while you adopt the judicious maxim of Charles Lamb. I thought the article [Footnote: Gladstone's article (see ante, p.178) which was published in the October number of the Review. Lord Granville saw the proof slips.] excellent and very instructive; not always quite judicial. It will be read with immense pleasure on its own merits.

As far as we have gone we have surely adhered to the declaration made to Parliament—'Neutrality, with as friendly relations as is compatible with impartiality; exercise of the duties and maintenance of our rights, as neutrals.' We have protected Belgium with minimum risk to ourselves. We have given advice when it was acceptable and effective, such as that which led to the meeting of Favre and Bismarck. We have not obtruded advice when it would have been impotent excepting for harm. We hae reserved complete liberty of action for any contingency. All the neutral nations have been at our feet, anxious to know what we would do, professing to be ready to follow our example. One of the belligerents has already come to us for assistance. Those who think we have done nothing of course consider it an easy and inglorious task; but it requires a little firmness to resist not only the complaints of belligerents and the cajoleries of neutrals, but also the changeable gusts of public opinion at home. Yours sincerely,

GRANVILLE.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, October 2nd.—I understand you, my dear Sir; 'you' meaning your Cabinet. You want to see if France will defend herself energetically enough, obstinately enough, to warrant the neutral Powers saying to the Prussians, 'What you attempt is impossible; you are stirring up an interminable contest, which is becoming an evil and a peril for Europe.' Until that moment comes, your Cabinet does not think that the intervention of the neutral Powers in favour of peace could be effective.

Many reasons, some good, some plausible, may be adduced in support of a waiting policy. But take care! it often aggravates the questions it postpones. Consider what is actually taking place at the present moment. Prussia puts forward her claims more and more distinctly; France is exasperated and rejects them more and more positively. You can have no idea of the effect produced throughout France by the conversation of M. de Bismarck with M. Jules Favre. Bismarck, indeed, seems to have some notion of it, for he attempts to extenuate what he said or allowed to be understood. Evidently the result of this interview has been to leave the belligerents mutually more embittered than they were before; and the intervention of the neutral Powers at the present time is thus rendered more difficult.

I now put this incident on one side, and am going to the root of the matter. You want to see if France will defend herself energetically and obstinately. Look at what she has done already. The Prussians have certainly obtained great successes. They have beaten two of our regular armies. At this moment they are before Paris. Is Paris terror-struck? Do the Prussians enter it? I am not trusting to child's talk and vulgar boasting. My son William, and my son-in-law Cornelis de Witt, are now both in Paris, both in the National Guard, both clever, sensible men, not credulous, not given to boasting, and good judges of what is going on around them. They both write that Paris is able and determined to defend itself obstinately. And among the most cautious of my friends, those who doubted it at first are now of the same opinion as my sons. By the last balloon from Paris I received a letter, dated September 21st, from a simple, obscure citizen. He writes:—'Our Paris, bristling with bayonets, is a splendid sight; perfect order, glowing patriotism, and a resolve to fight to the death. The insolence of Bismarck's reply to Jules Favre has enraged and electrified all hearts. The Prussians will pay dearly for their blunder in condemning us to heroism or despair. Yesterday was a good day; in two places, Villejuif and St. Denis, we attacked the Prussians and defeated them.'

I do not know if this degree of ardour and confidence is to be accepted as general. I quote it as an illustration of the feeling in Paris on the seventh day of the siege. The fighting is at present round the fortifications; later on it will be on the ramparts, and then in the streets. First the detached forts; then the enceinte; then the barricades. And when it comes to these—if it ever gets so far—independent of the organised forces of all kinds, there will be the populace, the Paris mob, intelligent and bold men, who fight well on the barricades for the very fun of it.

How long will this defence of Paris last? I do not know, and am not going to prophesy. But what I do know, what I hear from all sides, is that it will last long enough to excite a patriotic and warlike sentiment through the whole land. France is not peopled with heroes; there are the bold and the timid, as in every other country; but there are heroes enough—and others will arise—to keep the nation in a state of fever, and consequently Europe in a state of alarm inconsistent with true peace, with the prosperity of the nations and the security of European order.

The Prussians, and, as I am told, Bismarck himself, have reckoned, and are perhaps still reckoning, on our internal dissensions and quarrels, kept alive by the traditions and the hopes of the old parties. It is a natural error, but made in complete ignorance of the actual state of things. National sentiment has overcome the old discord. One sole, universal and absorbing passion dominates all parties—the passion of defending the soil and honour of France. Two of the most illustrious Vendeens, MM. de Cathelineau et Stofflet, have asked for and received from the Government an authorisation to assist them against the Prussians. MM. Rochefort and Gustave Flourens, formerly the most ardent democrats, have joined the government of General Trochu, and are preparing barricades, to maintain a fierce struggle against the besiegers at the gates and in the streets of Paris, if it should ever be necessary.

7 P.M.—My letter was interrupted by the arrival of the evening papers, and a letter from my daughter Pauline, dated September 25th, brought by a balloon. I copy the following, verbatim:—

'After being on guard the day before yesterday, for twenty-six hours, without anything worse than repeated alarms, my husband and son returned and are somewhat rested. Yesterday we went to Montmartre—a very populous and stirring quarter. I cannot tell you often enough how well Paris is behaving; enthusiasm and unanimity prevail everywhere; the good and the wise have silenced the fools. This will raise up France; it is a balm for many sorrows. I can assure you the country is not demoralised. I do not know how long the trial will last, but we shall be the better for it.'

Admit that if this conduct is maintained, if Paris—which in June 1848 suppressed the revolutionary anarchy in her own bosom—in 1870 stops a foreign invasion, and holds it at bay before her ramparts, it will be a great deed, worthy of esteem and sympathy. If in presence of such a fact, your neutrality should continue cold and inert, the friends of European peace and of the good understanding between France and England would have great cause for astonishment. It is for this reason that I conjure England and her Government to give the matter their serious consideration.

The Journal here gives a short sketch of a month's holiday:—

October 12th.—Started for Ireland. Crossed in a gale. To Dunsany on the 14th. 15th, drove with Lord Dunsany to Trim; saw the castle; Larachor, Swift's living; Dangan, now quite ruined; and back by Lord Longford's. 17th, to Dartrey. Met the Verulams there, and Lady Meath. 21st, drove to Coote Hill fair. 24th, to Belfast and Clandeboye. Some days with Lord Dufferin at Clandeboye. Professor Andrews came over from Belfast. 30th, back to Dublin to stay with Mansfield, who was now commander-in-chief in Ireland. Saw Lord Spencer—lord-lieutenant. November 1st, crossed to Holyhead and went to Teddesley, where Christine joined me. Back to town on the 5th.

From Lord Stanhope

Chevening, October 11th.—I have been reading with much interest the article on Queen Anne in the 'Edinburgh,' and I hope you will allow me to express to you how much I am gratified at the favourable view which it takes of my performance. The reviewer and I, as I am glad to find, often agree in our views of men and things; and whenever we differ, our difference is expressed in terms that cannot but give great pleasure to any author.

The reviewer, in this case, has certainly one main advantage over some of my other critics. They seem to have no knowledge of Queen Anne's reign except what my book imparted to them, and they therefore criticised my book on its own merits or demerits alone. Here, on the contrary, the writer is, I see, most deeply versed in all the memoirs and published records of those times, which he can bring to bear with great effect upon any passage that he desires either to controvert or to confirm.

It strikes me very forcibly, from my acquaintance with your style, that the writer of this article is no other than yourself. [Footnote: The article was by Herman Merivale (d. 1874).] If so, pray accept my sincere thanks; if not, pray convey them from me to the critic unknown.

Lady Stanhope and I have been to North Wales and Devonshire, but settled at Chevening ten or twelve days ago. From here we went without delay to call upon the Empress at Chislehurst; as indeed we were bound to do, having in former years received great kindness from them, and been their guests for a week at Compiegne. Nothing could be more touching and gracious than her manner. She had tears in her eyes all the while we were with her, and her voice was often choked by emotion; yet she did not let fall a single word of invective or personal reproach against her enemies in France. She told me that her first wish on reaching England had been to proceed with her son to the Emperor at Wilhelmshoehe; but on applying to the Prussian authorities, she could obtain no assurance that she and her son should not be treated as prisoners of war; and under these circumstances the Emperor forbade her to come.

Poor, poor Paris! when shall you and I ever see it again?

From Lord Westbury

Hinton, November 11th. I kept myself free from engagements during the first three weeks of November, thinking I might be called on to do suit and service at the Judicial Committee; but I have not made any provision for December, as I thought it was fully understood (certainly by me) at the end of last session, that, from the end of Michaelmas term until Christmas, the Lords Justices would have charge of the Judicial Committee for the whole of each week, or certainly four days in every week. We calculated that the most important business on the appeal side in Chancery would be so reduced by the two courts of appeal during Michaelmas term that the Lord Chancellor alone would suffice for all necessities during December. I have therefore postponed every engagement here until December. My house will be full; I cannot therefore give you any aid; but I am not sorry for it, for if the arrears were at all reduced, nothing would be done in the appointment of a permanent tribunal, with a proper staff of judges. You must still be Atlas staggering under the weight of your huge Orbis Causarum. Around your feet must be millions of Hindoos, crying aloud for justice. It is only this spectacle for gods and men that will move the Government to do its duty.

It would be easy for me to attend if my establishment and family were in town. But if I promised you a fortnight in December, I must put off numerous engagements and remove my servants, horses, &c., to London, only to bring them down again here for Christmas; or, at the risk of being ill as well as wretched, I must go to London alone, into a cold deserted house, with the attendance at most of two female servants. No; you must get as much as you can out of the Lords Justices, who must begin the task of learning Hindoo and Mahomedan law. Besides, if I disposed of twenty Indian appeals in December (a most unlikely thing), it would be the signal for adding forty more to the list, and so you would be more encumbered than ever. It is useless to make these poor spasmodic efforts. The thing must be done effectually. You are hopelessly bankrupt, and the driblets of aid you solicit will not enable you to stave off ruin.

An article by Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen on the 'Business of the House of Commons,' published in the 'Edinburgh Review' for January 1871, was submitted in proof to the Speaker, Mr. Denison, whose comments drew from the writer the following reply:—

From Mr. E. H. Knatchbull-Hugessen [Footnote: At this time under-secretary of state for the Home Department: created Lord Brabourne in 1880; died in 1893.]

Smeeth, November 23rd.—The Speaker knows more than I do, if he knows that it is an understood thing 'that a committee shall next session be appointed to consider the present mode of conducting the public business.' It is not generally known; and I doubt the policy of alluding, in an article which may be read by the public generally, to that which is only known to a privileged few. You, however, must be the best judge, and of course I have no objection to insert a sentence or two of allusion to this fact (?) [Footnote: The (?) is Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's.] if you wish it; but if pressing business—or war—postpones this committee, the 'Review' will look rather foolish.

When you say the article is 'rather too multifarious,' I quite agree that it might be condensed and curtailed. But even had I time to go through it again with this intention, I frankly own that I should doubt the expediency of doing so. I wrote it currente calamo, and my object was to attack the existing system upon many points at once, in order to carry some—just as an army besieging a town may make half a dozen attacks, of which three, being feints, give a better chance of success to the other three. You will observe that I do sum up the four prominent points: 1, cloture; 2, limitations of motions for adjournment; 3, public bill revision committee; 4, restrictions upon counts-out.

I quite agree with what the Speaker writes about our 'absurdly late hours.' I have no strong feeling upon the Wednesday question, and perhaps the Speaker is right, although I think the point is alluded to in a manner not too strong nor too 'disparaging' to the fixed hour, as I only recommend that a division, instead of an adjournment, either upon main question or adjournment, should take place compulsorily at the fixed hour.

I return you the Speaker's letter. I don't know whether you could conveniently run down here on Saturday and spend a quiet Sunday. You would find my wife and me alone, excepting Godfrey Lushington, who is coming to discuss highway bills. We could have a talk over the matter then. If you cannot manage it, write me word how you wish the article altered, and I will do it. I confess, however, that I think, as a preliminary attack upon abuses which will require closer and more detailed grappling with hereafter, it had better not be much altered.

From the Queen of Holland

Hague, December 26th.

My dear Mr. Reeve, [Footnote: The Queen of Holland seems to have laid down a somewhat curious rule in regard to her correspondence with Reeve: when she was in Holland, she wrote to him in English; when she was in England, she wrote in French.]—Your most interesting letter reached me a few days ago. Ever since, I have been trying to get some of the papers relating to the Luxembourg question; however, the one enclosed is the only one I have been able to obtain. Such is the fear of the kingdom of the Netherlands to be involved in any of the impending Luxembourg difficulties, that everything relating to that part of the world is scrupulously ignored; and if the papers are not claimed at Luxembourg, where the most jealous of men, Prince Henry, governs, you cannot obtain the real truth. The fact is, Mr. de Bismarck a cherche une querelle d'Allemand, first to obtain a free passage through the Luxembourg railroads; in the future, to annex the little grand duchy, to close the frontier on that side entirely.

This, however, is still kept for a few months hence, as Mr. de B. would not be put quite on the same line with Prince Gortschakoff, though they are perfectly of the same opinion.

It is a sad time, a very bad symptom, when principles, engagements, treaties, are all a la merci of two or three unscrupulous men.

Forgive the haste in which I am compelled to write, this time of the year being particularly busy. Remember me kindly to Mrs. Reeve, and believe me, dear Mr. Reeve, very sincerely yours,

SOPHIA.

The Journal here has:—

The French artists being driven over by the war, Millais gave a dinner, on December 20th, to Gerome and Heilbuth—interesting. I took Gerome to see Herbert's Moses in the House of Lords, but it was invisible from a fog.

We all dined with Lady Molesworth on Christmas Day, and ended the year with the Van de Weyers at New Lodge.

January 3rd, 1871.—We had a small dinner to Sir William Mansfield and Lord Elcho. On the 5th to Aldermaston (Higford Burr), with Bruce, [Footnote: Afterwards Lord Aberdare.] Colvile, [Frank Buckland], &c.

Professor Sybel was not one of Reeve's frequent correspondents, and the following extract is from the only letter of his which has been preserved, probably the only one ever written. The primary cause of it was some trifling business connected with the exchange of publications—the 'Edinburgh Review' and Sybel's 'Historische Zeitschrift;' but, having settled that, the course of events tempted him, as a German and an historian, to continue.

From Professor von Sybel

Bonn, January 9th.

Hochgeehrter Herr,—... What a change in our circumstances since I had last the pleasure of seeing you! To us, Germans, it would often appear as a dream, did not our sacrifices and our efforts bring the reality vividly before us. The desire for a speedy conclusion of the war is general; but, I am proud to say, no less general is the determination to fight and to bleed till we have brought it to a satisfactory issue. We are resolved not to be attacked again as we were in July, and on that account we will move our frontier to the Vosges. We will fight until the French acknowledge us as having rights and position equal to their own, till the organs of their Government cease from their New Year animadversion, such as the 'Siecle' has published, and we will crush everyone who calls in question our place as one of the Great Powers of Europe; and in thus rooting out this boast of supremacy, we believe we are earning the gratitude of all Europe.

Hochachtungsvoll und ergebenst

H. v. SYBEL.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, January 16th.—I received the 'Edinburgh Review' yesterday, and read your article at once. It is excellent—the language of a profound observer, and of a true friend of France. There are pages I should like all my countrymen at all able to understand them to learn by heart, among others from these words (p. 22): 'The life of man is so short,' to these: 'the collective strength of a nation may be sensibly diminished by it.' You have here laid your finger on the great evil of our democracy: 'It readily sacrifices the past and the future to what is supposed to be the interest of the present.' If I were in Paris, I should like to have a translation of nearly the whole article [Footnote: 'France,' in the Review for January 1871. The article was republished in Royal and Revolutionary France, with the title 'France in 1871.'] published in our newspapers. But I am not there; the Prussian shells go in my stead.

I am told that the opening of your Parliament is fixed for February 8th. I will wait until you can let me know this with certainty, and will then send you the letter I mentioned. But I must beg you not to forward it to its address till my translator—Miss Martin—reports to you that it is ready. It seems to me very desirable that the translation should be published as soon as the letter itself has been delivered. I understand that, on this condition, the 'Times' will give the whole of it, which will ensure it the widest possible publicity in England, where its publicity is the most important. The French edition will not appear till after the translation has been published in the 'Times.'

From the Queen of Holland

Hague, January 17th.

Dear Mr. Reeve,—I have received your letter. I have received the 'Edinburgh Review.' I did not glance over the pages, I read and re-read them; and I thank you for the real enjoyment they have afforded me. True in thought, admirable in expression, there can be but one judgement on both your articles, and I will certainly endeavour to have them translated into Dutch, to spread the truth. Allow me only to regret the great severity with which you treat the fallen Empire. I put aside every personal feeling, but I remain convinced that posterity will be more lenient in judgement than the present in the raging storm. There were faults in the system, inherent and inherited. As to the head of the system, few men have been more naturally kind and good. He had the weakness of these natures—wishing to content everyone. No question of principle seemed to him worthy of the inestimable enjoyment of peace. Avec les differents partis il se laissait aller a des paroles, a des engagements contradictoires; de la une apparence de dissimulation, bien eloignee de sa nature. The prisoner of Wilhelmshoehe belongs to the past. To those that have known and loved him falls the task of obtaining justice for him. I cannot talk of the present events, of the destruction of Paris. I bow my head and I hope in God's justice.

Will you remember me kindly to Mrs. Reeve? and believe me, with real gratitude, truly and sincerely yours,

SOPHIA.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, February 7th.—I have received from Mr. Gladstone a letter dated January 30th, as friendly as possible towards myself, but vague and evasive in respect to the policy of the Cabinet in the present situation. Not only does he postpone every measure, every indication of his intentions till after the election and the opening of the National Assembly, which is very natural, but he gives no hint as to how far his Government will insist respecting the conditions of peace. It is, of course, impossible for me to argue the point with him—such a discussion would be unbecoming both on his part and mine. I understand his reserve, but I can neither accept the reasons for it nor its results. It is therefore to you that I address my further observations in support of my letter of January 18th, begging you to communicate them to Mr. Gladstone, who will quite understand why I do not address them to himself. I should also be glad to know if he would object to the publication of his letter of January 30th, and of that which I am now sending you? For my part I wish this publicity, in both England and France; but I will not authorise it without his approval.

If this should be agreed on, pray let me know your opinion as to publishing it in the 'Times.' I am sure that, in this case, Miss Martin would undertake the translation.

The Journal notes:—

February 18th—Pleasant dinner at Mansfields', though Mansfield himself was carried off by the Prince of Wales.

26th.—Dinner at Lord Granville's, to meet the Duc de Broglie, who came as ambassador.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, March 4th.—Your sad predictions were well founded; the painful abscission has been made; we bore it at least with good sense and dignity. Without discussion or delay, the National Assembly has accepted the peace imposed upon it; and the population of Paris left the Prussian corps to parade through one single quarter of the town in solitude and silence. The Prussians have not seen Paris, and Paris did not go to see the Prussians. Their triumph had no spectators. Their present policy is one more example, after so many others, of the insolent and blind folly of victors who sow the seeds of war at the moment they are making peace. You can have no idea of the passionate sentiment of sorrow and anger which fills the soul of France, in all classes and in every part of the country. It is impossible to say when and under what form the future will mark this feeling, but it is written. One cannot tire of repeating the last words of the Chancellor Oxenstiern to his son when starting for the tour through Europe: 'Ito mi fili et inspice quam parva sapientia mundus regitur' ...

The Journal continues:—

March 16th.—Dinner at home to the Duc de Broglie, the Dartreys, Mintos, Houghton, and Lady Molesworth.

April 1st.—Went to Draycott on a visit to the Cowleys. The Lavalettes there and the old Duchess of Cleveland. Went on to Bath to try the waters there. Bath, however, did no good to the gout, of which I had, all this spring, repeated attacks. Saw Wells Cathedral, Glastonbury, and Longleat. Over to Bristol, and then back to town on April 15th.

No sooner was the siege of Paris ended and peace signed, than the frightful insurrection of the Commune broke out in Paris; the city was for many weeks in complete possession of the mob; Thiers and the army retired on Versailles, and recommenced the siege of Paris by French troops. The Archbishop and other hostages were murdered, and at last the city was set on fire. Nothing even in the First Revolution equalled the madness of this period. What a curious contrast to the even tenour of London life! I find in my diaries no trace of these tremendous catastrophes.

May 1st.—International Art Exhibition opened. I went in my doctor's robes and orders; the only time I ever wore them.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, 4 juin.

My dear Sir,—La destruction a atteint son terme, l'oeuvre de reconstruction commence. Elle sera tres difficile, mais je n'en desespere pas, et j'y prendrai quelque part sans sortir de ma cellule. Quelle vie que la mienne! Mon plus ancien souvenir politique est d'avoir vu de loin, du haut d'une terrasse de la petite maison de campagne ou ma mere s'etait refugiee pendant la Terreur, en 1794, les Jacobins poursuivis et assommes par la reaction contre Robespierre au 9 thermidor. La scene se passait sur les boulevards de Nismes. J'assiste en 1871, de la campagne aussi, a la chute des nouveaux Jacobins, vrais heritiers et eleves de la Terreur. Et que n'ai-je pas vu, en fait d'evenement, dans cet intervalle de 77 ans!

Sur ce je vous dis adieu. Je me porte assez bien, malgre mes 83 ans et ces spectacles Shakspeariens. La France est, depuis 1789, une immense tragedie de Shakspeare.

Tout a vous,

GUIZOT.

Reverting to the Journal:—

Mr. Grote died on June 18th. I attended the funeral in Westminster Abbey on the 24th. John Mill and Overstone were among the pall-bearers.

At The Club dinner, on June 20th, the Duc d'Aumale took leave of us before returning to France. There were present: the Lord Chancellor (Hatherley), Master of the Rolls [Romilly], Duke of Cleveland, Lord Salisbury, Lord Derby, Sir H. Holland, Dean Stanley, W. Smith, and self.

About this time I was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath. Lord Ripon, then Lord President, had asked them to make me a K.C.B., but Gladstone wrote me word that it was a rule that men should pass through the third grade to arrive at the second. [Footnote: That there was such a rule has been very fully proved by numerous exceptions.] Arthur Helps and William Stephenson were made C.B.'s at the same time, and afterwards K.C.B.'s. I was gazetted a C.B. on June 30th.

The following from Lord Granville refers to a conversation in the House of Lords on the constitution of the Appellate Court of the Judicial Committee. The Marquis of Salisbury had said that in his opinion it should be a court of fixed constitution.

At present it was often difficult to discover who were the judges in the particular case. He believed the President of the Council in every case appointed the judges; but, as he understood, it was practically done by a gentleman for whom all had the greatest respect, Mr. Henry Reeve, the Registrar. This did not seem a satisfactory state of things for a tribunal dealing with matters which excited people's passions and feelings to the highest degree, and on which parties were angrily divided. Nobody conversant with the matter could harbour the unworthy suspicion that the Court was ever packed for the trial of a particular case—he had no apprehensions on that score; but it was because the action and constitution of the Court should be above all suspicion that he would urge the noble and learned lord on the woolsack to provide some fixed constitution, so that the Court should not be constituted afresh for each particular case it had to consider.

Lord Granville replied in the sense of his letter to Reeve, except that he said 'Mr. Reeve invariably consulted the Lord President, who, on some occasions, called a Cabinet Council.' The Lord President at that time was the Marquis of Ripon. Granville was followed by Lord Cairns, who said:—

He could testify from considerable experience to the way in which Mr. Reeve performed his duties. The fact was that there was a great unwillingness to attend, and undergo the great labour and responsibility of hearing important cases. Mr. Reeve, knowing this, and having an earnest desire to perform the duties of his office effectively—no public officer could discharge them better—was in the habit of making himself acquainted with the arrangements of those who might be expected to attend, with a view—not to decide who ought to attend to hear particular cases—but as to whose services were obtainable, in order that some kind of Court might be constituted.... It ought to be understood that no person had any power of selecting some and excluding others, and that the Registrar's endeavour to procure the attendance of individuals had merely arisen from anxiety lest there should be no quorum. [Footnote: Hansard, 1871, June 22nd, cols. 389-91.]

From Lord Granville

16 Bruton Street, June 23rd.—I see the report in the 'Times' is defective. I stated that the Lord President was undoubtedly responsible for all that you did. I paid a high tribute to your services to the Judicial Committee (which was cheered by the law lords); I said the difficulty was often great to collect sufficient members to attend; that you took great pains, by ascertaining the wishes and possible dates, to ensure this; that for ordinary meetings of the Court you acted on your own judgement; but that in all cases where there was a possibility of party or personal feeling being made a cause of want of confidence in the composition of the Court, you had always consulted me; and I had, on some occasions, not only consulted the Home Office, but the Cabinet, in order to do that which would ensure public confidence. I should not be sorry if you could show that I was not in the wrong. I was delighted to hear of your C.B. None could be more deserved.

The Journal records:—

July 7th.—I dined with Mrs. Grote; one of the first persons she saw after Grote's death.

8th.—A banquet was given at the Crystal Palace to the members of the Comedie Francaise, who had been driven over to London by the siege of Paris and the Commune.

This 'banquet' was of the nature of a lunch, beginning at two o'clock. Lord Dufferin was in the chair, supported by Lords Granville, Stanhope, Powerscourt, Lytton, Houghton, Mr. Disraeli, Tennyson, Macready, and others. When 'the desire of eating was taken away,' the chairman, speaking in French, proposed the health of the guests. M. Got responded. Horace Wigan, too, spoke; and Lord Granville, 'whose fluent command of extempore French excited general admiration,' gave 'The Health of the Chairman,' and, with a neat reference to the 'Letters from High Latitudes,' then 14, not 41 years old, said: 'L'accueil que vous avez donne a son discours doit rassurer Lord Dufferin et lui faire meme oublier les succes oratoires que—Latiniste incomparable, et voue au purisme Ciceronien—il a obtenus dans les regions plus septentrionales.' To this chaff Lord Dufferin replied in English: 'Lord Granville has been good enough to allude to what he is pleased to describe as an oratorical triumph in a distant country; and I would venture to remind you—and you may take the word of an experienced person in confirmation of what I am about to say—that when anybody wishes to make a speech in a foreign language, he will find it much more easy to do so after dinner than at an early hour in the morning.'

For Reeve this wound up the season. A few days later, July 23rd, he, with his wife, started for Germany.



CHAPTER XVIII

THE GREVILLE MEMOIRS

Dr. de Mussy had recommended Reeve to drink the water at Carlsbad, so to Carlsbad they went, and stayed there twenty-four days. The manner of life at Carlsbad may be very wholesome, but no one has ever ventured to speak of it as jovial. The Reeves thought it 'dull enough,' and left it with a feeling of release, on August 23rd. On the 24th they were at Dresden, and reached home on September 3rd. And then came a curious reaction; a disagreeable experience of the Carlsbad treatment. 'Henry,' wrote Mrs. Reeve a few days later, 'who had been quite well and quite free from gout all the time, had a tendency thereto on leaving Hamburg, which, on landing at Gravesend, was a sharp attack in the right hand. He cannot hold a pen.... His doctor and some fellow-patients all say that after Carlsbad waters such attacks are frequent, and that they in no way imply that the waters did not suit.' The Journal goes on:—

September 16th.—To Gorhambury [Lord Verulam's] with Christine. On leaving the house on the 18th to go to the station, the horse in the fly ran away. We were overturned near the park gates, and had a narrow escape. Nobody was hurt, and we drove on [in another fly] to Lord Ebury's at Moor Park.

October 2nd.—To Scotland on a visit to Moncreiff at Cultoquhey; thence to Minard (Mr. Pender's) on Loch Fyne; thence to Edinburgh; Ormiston on the 21st; the John Stanleys there and Lord Neaves. [Footnote: A lord of justiciary, one of the foremost authorities on criminal law in Scotland, and for more than forty years a regular contributor of prose and verse to Blackwood's Magazine.] Lady Ruthven to dinner.

26th.—To Auchin, and home on the 28th.

A bill had passed at the close of the last session for the appointment of four paid members of the Privy Council. They were Sir James Colvile, Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Montague Smith, and Sir Robert Collier. These judges began to sit on November 6th of this year. The Court, from that time, sat continuously. I obtained an additional clerk, and also an addition of 300 L a year to my own salary, which was fixed at 1,500 L.

Pleasant visit to New Lodge (Van de Weyer's) in November. Shooting at Lithe Hill in December.

The Prince of Wales's serious illness. He very nearly died on December 6th.

December 20th.—The Broglies dined with us, to meet Beust and the Foresters.

22nd.—Mrs. Forester asked us, at my desire, to meet Disraeli and Lady Beaconsfield, at a small party. There was nobody else there but Lord and Lady Colville. It was very interesting and agreeable.

1872.—The year opened in Paris, where I had gone after Christmas; the first time I had been there since the war. M. Thiers was President of the Republic. I went to Versailles to see him on January 3rd, and found him in the Prefecture—the room that had been occupied just before by the German Emperor. M. Lesseps was there that evening, and we returned to Paris together. He and his friends were apparently very anxious to sell the Suez Canal. I dined with Thiers on the 6th also.

M. Thiers's conversation on the war, the Commune and the siege was very interesting. He said to me: 'Certainement je suis pour la Republique! Sans la Republique qu'est-ce que je serais, moi?—bourgeois, Adolphe Thiers.' He described the withdrawal of the troops from Paris, which was his own act. Then the siege, which he claims to have directed, the battery of Mouton Tout, adding, 'Nous avons enterre, en entrant a Paris, vingt mille cadavres.'

Dined at Mme. Mohl's on the 5th with M. de Lomenie and M. Chevreuil, who is about eighty-five.

The Duc d'Aumale had opened his house in the Faubourg St.-Honore; reception there.

January 8th.—Dined with the Economists to meet the Emperor of Brazil. I was presented to him, and made a speech in French on the maintenance of the commercial treaty, which was applauded. Back to London on the 9th.

Reeve had already proposed to Mr. Longman to publish a volume of his articles from the 'Edinburgh Review.' He now wrote to him:—

C.O., January 11th.—I find that the French articles I wish to collect and publish amount to twelve. I enclose a list of them. They make about 380 pages of the 'Edinburgh Review' form. How much will that make if printed in a smaller form? The title of the volume is an important matter. I have thought of 'Royal and Republican France,' or 'A Cycle of French History;' but I may think of something better. If you will make the arrangements, I shall be able to supply copy very soon. The introduction can be printed afterwards, I suppose?

I conclude you will publish on the half-profit plan, though my past experience of that system does not lead me to regard it as the road to fortune. Of our military volume about 650 copies were sold, and Chesney and I made 2 L. 3s. 0d. apiece!

To this Mr. Longman replied:—

From Mr. T. Longman

January 14th.—I will have the calculation made of the articles you mention. I conclude you would wish to print in the usual demy 8vo. form, like Macaulay's Essays and all the other reprints from the 'E.R.'

The plan of a division of profits has been usual in such republications; and it seems peculiarly adapted to them, as neither the contributor nor the publisher can republish separately without the consent of the other. Whether that plan of publication may be a road to fortune or not depends on the demand for the book. I had once the satisfaction of paying 20,000 L on one year's account, on that principle, to Lord Macaulay. I certainly had no expectation of a fortune from the republication which produced you 2 L 3s. 0d.; but had I purchased the right of separate publication for 100 L, I hardly think you would have been satisfied that fortune should have so favoured you at my expense. It seems to be the fashion to decry that mode of publication; but there will always be books that can be published on no other terms, unless at the cost and risk of the author.

From Lord Westbury

Hinton St. George, January 12th.—I am glad to find that you have returned in safety from Paris with your oratorical honours [Footnote: Of the French speech in Paris on the 8th.] rich upon you. I do not think that even Cicero ventured on making an oration in Greek, in Athens; but you have charmed fastidious Paris with your pure accent and your classic French. I was in despair when I found your eloquence imputed to another name; but I heard the error was so generally corrected that you may count on your fame descending unchallenged to posterity.

I should agree with you that Franco was to be despaired of, if France were to be considered as subject to ordinary rules. But she is, and has ever been, so anomalous, that ordinary moral reasoning from history is wholly inapplicable to her. At present, one would think she had reached the lowest depth of moral degradation. She might be usefully touched to the quick, if she could only believe that she is becoming ridiculous in the eyes of Europe.

Not that we can expect a much better fate. When the Treaty of Washington was published, I strove to awaken in the minds of several leading men a full sense of its folly, and of the calamitous consequences that would be sure to follow from such an act of foolish, gratuitous submission; but I made no impression; not even as to the absurdity of introducing new and ill-considered rules, and giving them a retrospective operation. I succeeded with no one. I therefore concluded I must be in the wrong. Now, however, the American indictment bears testimony to the accuracy of my forebodings. I entreated Lord Granville not to permit the arbitration to go on upon such a basis, which it was never intended that the reference should cover or include. It is a fraudulent attempt to extend the reference most unwarrantably; and if the arbitration is permitted to proceed on such a claim, the consequences will be most disastrous. It is a sad spectacle to see a once gallant and high-spirited nation submitting tamely to be thus bullied. If not firmly protested against, and resisted in limine, you will have an award which England will repudiate with indignation; and war, the fear of which has made us submit to these indignities, will be sure to follow.

The relative attitudes of England and the United States in 1896 and 1897 have not materially differed from those of 1872. The policy which has been persistently followed by this country has not yet resulted in war, but it seems to many now, as it did to Lord Westbury then, extremely likely to do so. Peace between two such countries can only be assured when it rests on mutual respect and a community of interests. We may persuade ourselves that, in the main, our true interests are identical; but the recent diplomatic correspondence from the States does not tell of much respect.

But as to the point at issue in 1872, Reeve wrote in reply to Lord Westbury, about January 15th:—

I agree very much with what you say of the Treaty of Washington, and have never been able to prevail on myself to say a word in its favour. The result is that the fate and honour of this country are placed in the hands of a Swiss and a Brazilian referee, neither of whom knows a word of the English language! Lord Lyons told me so last week in Paris.

The Journal notes:—

January 22nd.—Visit to the Archbishop of Canterbury at Addington—pleasant; but in going up from Croydon on the 23rd, I was nearly killed by a runaway hearse, which struck my cab and knocked it over. I was not hurt, but two accidents in a year made me nervous. [Footnote: See ante, p. 201.]

From Mr. H. F. Chorley

18 Eaton Place West, February 8th.

My dear Reeve,—I send you what I have done in re Hawthorne. I offer a character rather than a review, proved by extracts; since had I gone on in extenso I don't know where I should have stopped. Nothing but my strong wish to get my subject before the public could have made me carry out my article, poor as it is, seeing that I have written it half a leaf at a time, and with a weak, weary hand, the end of which will not impossibly be palsy. But I think as a character, when duly corrected, my work may not come out amiss. Ever yours faithfully, HENRY F. CHORLEY.

Endorsed—Chorley's last note. He died about a week afterwards [suddenly on February 16th. The article had apparently not been finished, and was not published].

From the Journal:—

January 24th.—Went to see the Sandhursts at Brighton, but gout came on worse, and I was ill for some weeks. I presided at The Club, however, on the 27th, the Thanksgiving Day for the recovery of the Prince of Wales, and proposed his health.

March 14th.—I published a collection of my articles on French history and affairs under the title of 'Royal and Republican France.'

From Lord Derby

23 St. James's Square, March 15th.—Many thanks for your book on France. Most of the articles were familiar to me, but all will bear reading again. You here show up the weakness of French public life and the faults of French parties as no one else has done; and I do not recollect to have seen anywhere else pointed out the intimate connexion between the social state of modern France—with every old tradition destroyed, and the continuance of a family, as we understand the word here, rendered impossible—and the political condition, in which every public man is either fighting for his own personal interest and nothing else, or for the triumph of his particular theory of politics, which, if successful, is to be enforced despotically by all the power of a centralised administration. I have never thought so badly of the French future as now—no energy except among the Reds, no power of united action; general apathy even as to the present, and utter indifference to the future.

The Journal continues:—

March 31st.—Came down to Bournemouth for the first time with Hopie and the horses.

April 8th.—Rode to Hengistbury Head and saw for the first time the Southbourne estate. Dined with Lord Cairns. Back to town on the 9th.

17th.—Dined at Lord Derby's. Sat next Lady Clanricarde, who, a propos of Sir H. Holland's 'Past Life,' talked about her father [Footnote: George Canning, d. 1827.] and his last illness. She said that in truth Holland saw Canning very little at Chiswick, and that it was Sir Matthew Tierney who really attended him; and then she told me the following story of Tierney:—News came from Clumber that the Duke of Newcastle was dangerously ill with typhus fever. Tierney was sent down as fast as post-horses could carry him. It was about 1823, in the pre-railway days; and when he arrived he was informed that the Duke had been dead about two hours. Shocked at this intelligence, he desired to see the corpse, which was already laid out. At his first glance he thought he was dead. At the second he doubted it. At the third he cried out, 'Bring me up a bucket of brandy!' They tore the clothes off the body and swathed it in a sheet imbibed with brandy, and then resorted to friction with brandy. In rather more than an hour symptoms of life began to manifest themselves, and in two hours the Duke was able to swallow. He recovered, and lived twenty-five years afterwards. Certainly this triumph over death beats even Dr. Gull's nursing of the Prince of Wales. It is the myth of Hercules and Alcestis.

May 4th.—Visit to Drummond Wolff at Boscombe. A further look at Southbourne. I chose the site I afterwards purchased.

8th.—The King of the Belgians presided at the Literary Fund dinner. Disraeli made a capital speech.

18th.—Visit to Mrs. Grote at Sheire. Called at Albury. Many London dinners.

The Bennett case was heard at this time by the Judicial Committee. Long deliberation on the judgement at the Chancellor's on June 1st. It was delivered on June 8th. [Footnote: See 'The Bennett Judgement' in Edinburgh Review, October 1872.]

From Lord Westbury

June 1st,—I am going to Oxford, and fear I may be late at the committee. There are very important subjects in which we wish to examine you; especially the danger, if not the illegality, of attempting by new legislation to create a new Appellate Jurisdiction for the Colonies.

From Mr. E. Twisleton

3 Rutland Gate, June 6th

Dear Reeve,—I send you herewith Francis's translation of Pinto on Credit, together with the original French work of Pinto. The attack on Pombal is in Francis's concluding observations. Some of the notes are very interesting, as illustrating the feeling of national superiority among the English, and of national depression among the French, between 1763 and the American War of Independence—see pp. 52, 66, 166. My impression is that the French felt more humiliated during that period than during an equal number of years after 1814. The loss of Canada and their expulsion from America wounded their national feelings of pride then nearly as much as the loss of Alsace and part of Lorraine wounds those feelings now. A hundred years ago there were very exaggerated ideas, both in England and in France, as to the strength which a nation derived from colonies.

Yours very truly,

EDWARD TWISLETON.

P.S.—In Francis's Fragment of Autobiography he speaks of this translation as his own; and says that upon accepting his appointment to India he surrendered all his papers to Stephen Baggs, 'in whose name the translation had been published.' See 'Memoir of Sir P.F.' vol. i. p. 366.

The Journal notes:—

June 28th.—Assembly at Grosvenor House. July 2nd, assembly at Lansdowne House. July 3rd, Queen's ball—a very brilliant season.

From Lady Smith

Lowestoft, July 9th.

Dear Mr. Reeve,—In one of your friendly letters to me, after the decease of our valued friend Emily Taylor, you kindly hinted that you would occasionally favour me with a note; but, knowing the demands upon your pen, I should not have reminded you of this kindness but for an incident which occurred last evening when my niece, Ina Reeve, came in to me, saying she had read such a severe and bitter review of your late publication as quite surprised her. As she brought the 'Saturday Review' with her, she read it to me, and perhaps, dear friend, you may have read it, and perhaps guess its author. To me it seems he is not so angry with your books as with yourself. Mr. Reeve floats uppermost in almost every line, and 'tis you he hates. I perceive he cannot endure you, and makes use of your books only to insult you. I hope you will take care how you come in his way, for I am sure he will do you a mischief. Beware of the evil eye! He talks of your ignorance of the New Testament. I could not help thinking how little he is acquainted with its spirit.

I also read with much concern of the treatment by Mr. Ayrton of that admirable Curator at the Kew Gardens—Dr. Hooker. Cruel it will be to science and the public if he is driven from the position he is so competent to fill with good results.

I have read at present only a part of your first volume, which I much enjoyed. Sir James was in Paris about two or three years before the Great Revolution began, but the fermentation was beginning. 'Tis time to relieve you from my imperfect writing, for my sight is not very perfect, and by candlelight I can neither see to read or write. About two months go I completed my ninety-ninth year; but I have health and a new source of happiness in my nephew James and his dear daughter, who are come to reside at Lowestoft. She is a daily friend to me, a second self; as our taste in literature, in poetry, and in morals agree. Only think, the Dean of Norwich sent me his defence of St. Athanasius' Creed!

I am your dear friend,

P. SMITH.

The next entry in the Journal introduces us to the place—a site on the Southbourne estate already spoken of—where, two years afterwards, Reeve built the house in which so much of the last twenty years of his life was passed. It will be seen that for some time he hesitated between this and the neighbourhood of Ascot where, in the autumn, he inherited a small property.

July 13th.—To Christchurch, with Parker and Cockerell, [Footnote: Frederick Pepys Cockerell, one of a family of distinguished architects, and himself of a high reputation. He died at the age of 45, in 1878.] about the house at Foxholes.

17th.—Dined at Duke of Argyll's. 20th, three days at Strawberry Hill. 27th, party at Aldermaston: Otway, Layards, H. Bruce.

Having taken Loch Gair House for the season, went there by Greenock on August 2nd. I paid about twelve guineas a week. [Loch Gair—wrote Mrs. Reeve—is a tiny, land-locked bay on the west shore of Loch Fyne. Park-like grounds, with a pretty burn rushing down, skirt this loch. There is a small kitchen garden, and a dairy of six cows. The best fishing is in Loch Clasken, about a mile and a half west. There is a boat on the loch. The house is a square structure, three stories high, and with underground larders, dairy, &c. and attics for servants, so that there is ample accommodation. I think Henry will enjoy the serene beauty of the place, the balmy air and fragrant odours, and idleness, delicious because earned by hard work.]

The Penders being at Minard, we had the benefit of their society and his yacht. Roland Richardson, Frank Hawkins, Mr. Dempster, the Worsleys, Edmund Wallace, Fairfax Taylor, Sir A. Grant, the Colebrookes, came to stay with us; and Colvile. The Derbys and Sir W. Thomson, [Footnote: Now Lord Kelvin.] Rawlinson, Massey, C. Villiers and the Lowes, staying at Minard.

[Of this time Mrs. Reeve wrote:—The sun is again ruling the day and the moon the night, to the very great glory of Loch Gair. On Sunday (August 18th) the whole Minard party, seventeen in number, came over to tea, much to the amusement of Mr. Dempster, to whom we talked of seclusion, and who did not expect a cabinet minister, a very 'swell' admiral, and sundry fine ladies. Mr. Dempster's was but a short visit, to our regret; and on Monday I took him in the dog-cart to meet the 'Iona' at Ardrishaig.]

October 2nd.—Left Loch Gair. Visit to Orde's at Kilmory; then to Invergarry (E. Ellice's) by the Caledonian Canal. Deer shooting. 11th, to Keir; 16th, to Ormiston; then to Abington—shooting there. To town on October 26th.

Miss Handley died in October. She left me the Winkfield portion of the Bracknell estate, which was afterwards confirmed by a decree of the Master of the Rolls.

November 13th.—Dined at Sandbach's with the Queen of Holland, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, Lady Eastlake, and Bishop Wilberforce. A few other dinners.

Monday, 25th.—I have been down to the Van de Weyers at New Lodge, Windsor Forest, from Saturday till Monday, a thing I have frequently done of late. Van de Weyer is almost the last survivor of the brilliant London society of thirty or forty years ago, and to his great literary and social experience he unites an unequalled knowledge of the politics of Europe. During the whole of his reign King Leopold was his own foreign minister; and he succeeded, by his connexion with the Queen of England, and with Louis-Philippe, and with Germany, in creating a most influential position in the world, which he did not impart to his Belgian ministers. But Van de Weyer was the exception. He was the constant channel of communication with the Court of England. The King wrote to him two or three times a week, and he to the King. Their correspondence must be a complete history of the times. Baron Stockmar was to an equal degree in his King's confidence; but Stockmar never had the political position of Van de Weyer, nor do I think he was so able a man. I had hinted, in my review of Stockmar's Life, [Footnote: Edinburgh Review, October 1872.] that his oracular powers had been somewhat exaggerated, and that he was rather more attached to the interests of the House of Coburg than to those of England; for which I do not blame him. However, Van de Weyer and some others of Stockmar's friends (including the Queen) dispute this, and probably think I have not done him justice.

For instance, Van de Weyer asserts that when the marriage of the Queen of Spain was on the tapis, Leopold and Queen Victoria had it in their power to bring about the Coburg marriage, but that they deliberately refused to do so from respect to their engagements with France. And they acted in this with the full concurrence of Stockmar. The Queen of Spain had established, by private means, a correspondence with Queen Victoria. The letters passed through the hands of Mr. Huth, the merchant, and from him to Van de Weyer, who delivered them. Isabella complained in these letters of her desperate and forlorn condition; said she was bullied and threatened by the French, and expressed her abhorrence of the marriage Bresson was urging upon her. She declared that if Leopold and Queen Victoria would sanction the Coburg marriage, she would throw the French over, and marry Prince Leopold the next day.

The King and our Queen held a solemn conference and deliberation on the subject. Palmerston was informed of the transaction; but the ministers seem to have had no great voice in the matter, for the Queen considered the engagement she had entered into at Eu as a personal promise, and England had consistently declared that 'she had no candidate.' To put forward Leopold at the last hour would have been to forfeit this pledge, which, on the contrary, was most strictly and honourably maintained.

It was the knowledge of this, and the consciousness that a less conscientious policy might have rescued the Queen of Spain from a dreadful fate, that rendered the Queen of England and Stockmar so indignant when it turned out that the French Government had been far less scrupulous, and had not only forced on the marriage of the Queen to a man she detested, but had also married the other Infanta to Montpensier.

This communication of Queen Isabella to Queen Victoria is to this day wholly unrevealed.

With regard to Leopold's annuity (which I explained in the 'Edinburgh Review'), it was not only secured by act of Parliament, but by treaty; for there was a regular treaty of marriage concluded between Prince Leopold and the Crown of England on his marriage with the Princess Charlotte.

The intrigues going on with reference to Belgium, both in France and in Holland, during the Polignac Ministry have been alluded to in a former page. [Footnote: Ante, pp. 111-12.] But it is less generally known that at this same time, the Prince of Orange, afterwards William II., was intriguing to form a party to place him on the throne of France in the event of the overthrow of the Bourbons.

He spent thirty or forty millions of francs in bribing officers of the army and others, which was the cause of his subsequent embarrassment and debts. The French found the plot out, and demanded of the King of Holland that the Prince should be signally punished. He was accordingly deprived of his command and of his rank in the army, and even for a time arrested and put in confinement. He then found out that his French adherents had only been deluding him to get his money.

December 4th.—To Teddesley. Shooting there. Thence to Crewe, to meet Lady Egerton of Tatton.

12th.—Henry Greville died. To Farnborough. I determined to publish the Greville Journals.

To Bracknell to see the Winkfield land; and to Timsbury for Christmas.

1873.—At Bournemouth early in January, about the house. To London on January 11th.

January 25th.—Lord Lytton's funeral in Westminster Abbey.

February 14th.—Dined at Harvie Farquhar's. He was one of C. Greville's executors, and was curious about the Journals.

To Mr. W. Longman

C.O., March 4th.—Mr. Morris [Footnote: Edward E. Morris, editor of Epochs of Modern History.] writes under a complete delusion. I could not possibly write anything for him in less than two years; and I had rather not enter into any agreement. On reflection, I am satisfied that it would not answer my purpose to write a popular 'History of the French Revolution' for 100 L, and to surrender the copyright. An author never ought to surrender a copyright unless he is compelled to do so. If I wrote a History of the French Revolution which became a school book or an educational book, it might become a property of some little value.

But the truth is that the 'Review' suffers when I am too busy to write in it; and I have in my hands and before me literary work and materials of a far more remunerative character, which will suffice to fill the remainder of my life. It would be unwise in me to undertake a fresh task, which could not possibly pay me. Therefore, upon the whole, I think you had better put it in other hands. [Footnote: Eventually the work was written by Mrs. S. R. Gardiner, though from a point of view very different, we may believe, from that which Reeve would have taken.] O'Connor Morris would do it very well.

I am sorry to alter my mind. My first impulse was to accept from a wish to oblige you, and from interest in the subject; but further consideration says 'NO!'

The Journal notes:—

March 19th.—Dined at Goschen's at the Admiralty. Mme. Novikoff there, an active Russian agent.

Mr. Gladstone's Government was beaten by a majority of three. Most of the casual elections this year went against the Government. Gladstone resigned on this occasion, but came in again, which he had better not have done.

March 31st.—Dined with Charles Austin—very old and infirm; his last effort. Lord Belper was there.

To Bracknell at Easter, in Miss Handley's house. Took the horses; went to meet of Queen's Hounds; stayed there till April 19th.

To Mr. W. Longman

Old Bracknell House, April 13th.

My dear William,—I am glad you have been to see my scrap of land. I have taken a great fancy to the spot, and should be very well contented to end my days there, gazing on that magnificent view of the coast and the sea. At present I am spending this vacation in Berkshire, and only suffering from the excessive cold.

I am reading with the greatest interest Baron Huebner's 'Promenade autour du Monde,' which was reviewed in the 'Times' two or three days ago. It is a work of extraordinary merit and importance. I shall review it in the next 'Edinburgh,' and I strongly recommend you to publish a translation of it, if you can. I have seldom read so wonderful a book.

Ever yours faithfully,

HENRY REEVE.

The Journal goes on to speak of perhaps the most remarkable 'centenarian' of the nineteenth century:—

May 23rd.—Dined at Lord Stanhope's with the Antiquaries. Dean Stanley proposed Lady Smith's health. She was just 100.

Pleasance Reeve, Lady Smith, widow of Sir James Smith, the botanist and founder of the Linnaean Society, was born on May 11, 1773, and christened on the following day at Lowestoft, where her baptismal register still exists. On May 13, 1873, having just completed her hundredth year, she caused a dinner to be given to the hundred oldest persons in Lowestoft, whose joint ages averaged seventy-seven years, and public rejoicings were held in the town. On May 24th I went down with my daughter to see her, and spent the best part of three days with her. Married in 1795 to Dr. Smith, afterwards Sir James, she had been the intimate friend, in Norwich, of my grandfather and grandmother. On my father's marriage in 1807, he took a house in Surrey Street, next door to the Smiths, and their intercourse was perpetual. I have myself no earlier recollection than that of her kindness to me and attachment to my mother. We used to sit in their pew at the Octagon Chapel, Norwich; and the first evening party I can remember was at her house, when Mrs. Opie and William Taylor were present—the latter I think rather drunk!

We found Lady Smith at Lowestoft on this 24th of May, sitting in her chair, looking extremely well, though shrunk; her voice was firm and unchanged; no deafness; no dulness of sight; and when they served a little collation she had ordered for us, she got up, moved to the table, and did the honours.

She complained, however, that the excitement of the last two or three weeks had impaired her strength and taken away her appetite, I told her that the evening before, when I was dining at Lord Stanhope's with the Antiquaries, her health had been proposed in a graceful speech by the Dean of Westminster. The venerable Society drank the most venerable lady. This affected her, and she exclaimed, 'You must not tell me such things as these. They drive me mad. I find it harder to support the many marks of kindness and distinction I have received than to bear the burden of a hundred years.'

I asked her what was the first thing she remembered. She said she was confident she remembered being taken to her aunt's at Saxmundham as an infant of nine months old, and still saw her eyes, the crocuses in the border, and the flutter of the fringe on her own robe. Of political events she thought the first in her memory was the taking of the Bastille, and she enlarged on the extraordinary enthusiasm excited by the French Revolution. I said the American war came before the Revolution of 1789; and she replied 'Yes, no doubt I remember hearing the American war talked about;' and then quoted the lines (Dr. Aikins' she said):—

See the justice of Heaven! America cries; George loses his senses, North loses his eyes. When first they provoked me, all Europe could find That the Monarch was mad and the Minister blind.

But the date of this epigram must be somewhat later. Lord North became blind in 1787 [and the King's insanity was not publicly known till November 1788].

She remembered Mr. Windham as one of the most graceful and fascinating of men. Lady Morley [Footnote: Frances, daughter of Thomas Talbot, of Wymondham, Norfolk, married Lord Boringdon, afterwards Earl of Morley, in 1809.] (the present Earl's grandmother) was staying with the Smiths when she came out, and was equally remarkable for her wit, her beauty, and her fine hair. Her mother, Mrs. Talbot, was very ugly. We then talked over all the old Norwich families, Gower, Taylors, Aldersons, Bathurst, &c. She said she thought my mother a much finer character than Mrs. Austin, and, she added, a fine understanding too.

Her interest in all the events of the day—the last spider discovered by Dr. Carpenter at the bottom of the ocean and the last improvement at Burlington House—is as keen as the recollection of the past. 'Punch' and the 'Illustrated News' and the other newspapers bring it all before her.

May 28th.—Gladstone presided at the Literary Fund dinner. I took Meadows Taylor, who was staying with us.

From Lady Smith

Lowestoft, May 31st.—Many thanks, dear Mr. Reeve, for sending me the handsome present of turtle soup, which came on Thursday evening and made the best part of my dinner on Friday. My intellectual treat has been the speeches by the Premier and others at the Literary Fund dinner, and I much admire the eloquence of the several talented gentlemen. I write so badly I will spare you, and only send my affectionate regards to Mrs. Reeve and dear Hopie, and to yourself. I am very sincerely yours,

P. SMITH.

Continuing the Journal:—

To Bracknell again on June 1st. Attended Ascot for the last time. The Shah of Persia was in London this year, and was received in state. The Queen lent him Buckingham Palace.

June 25th.—Goschen's fete to the Shah of Persia at Greenwich Hospital. Fine sight. We steamed through the docks after the Shah.

29th.—Met M. de Laveleye at Van de Weyer's.

July 14th.—Dined at Merchant Taylors' Hall; made a speech.

17th.—Dined at Lambeth, to talk over the Judicature Bill with the Archbishop. Met Bishop Wilberforce as I was driving down Constitution Hill. He was killed two days afterwards (on the 19th) by a fall from his horse, riding with Lord Granville.

Count Muenster came as German ambassador. I dined with him at Beust's and at Houghton's.

Lord Westbury died in London on July 20th, 1873; a man whose bitter tongue made him many enemies, and procured for him a reputation as of one without respect or regard for aught human or divine. Those who knew him well told a different tale. He has been described by them as having a most kind and feeling nature. 'He did not make many professions, but had the good of his fellow-creatures at heart. He always found time to give advice and help.' Reeve, who had been thrown into frequent and familiar intercourse with him, was in the habit of speaking of him as one whose real character was very different indeed from that assigned him by popular repute; and the letter of sympathy which he wrote to Lord Westbury's daughter, the Hon. Augusta Bethell,[Footnote: Afterwards Mrs. Parker, and, by a second marriage, Mrs. Nash.] merely expressed his honest opinion.

Rutland Gate, July 23rd.

Dear Miss Bethell,—I should have written sooner if I had had the use of my hand, to express to you my profound sorrow and sympathy in the loss you have sustained.

I look back with unmixed satisfaction on the relations I maintained for so many years with your father. He honoured me with his confidence and friendship. I have the profoundest admiration, not only for his qualities as a lawyer, but for his just and enlarged mind, his vast reading, his memory, and the inexhaustible kindness of his heart. He was one of the greatest men I have known, and one of those whose loss to us all is most irreparable. How much more so to you!

Mrs. Reeve begs to unite her condolences to mine; and we remain always

Your much attached friends,

HENRY REEVE.

The Journal notes a six weeks' tour with Mrs. Reeve in Switzerland and Germany:—

August 1st.—To Paris and Geneva, via Dieppe. Saw Thiers in Paris. He had been turned out of office on May 4th. On August 4th reached Binet's campagne. Family dinners, &c., at Geneva. 12th, called at Blumenthal's chalet, near Vevey. 14th, to Berne, Grindelwald, and Ragaz, by Zurich. Took baths at Ragaz. Longmans came there on the 22nd. Pleasant excursion to Glarus. 26th, to Syrgenstein [near the Lake of Constance—wrote Mrs. Reeve—where some cousins of ours, the Whittles, bought an old schloss with some 300 acres, and settled about fifteen years ago]. 31st, by Ulm to Baden-Baden, Bonn, Aix, Antwerp; home on September 8th.

September 10th.—Sir Henry Holland dined with us. He had just been to Nijni Novgorod, and was starting for Naples. He died as soon as he got back, on October 27th. This was the last time I saw him. He was then eighty-five. To Bracknell in September.

September 27th.—To Christchurch. Ordered fences for Foxholes.

October 3rd.—To Cultoquhey (Lord Moncreiff's). 6th, fishing at Battleby (Maxtone Graham's), in the Tay. We killed seven fish; I, one of 19 lbs.; Hopie, two, one of 25 lbs. Thence to the Colviles', at Craigflower, and on the 11th to Minto. 14th, drove to Ancrum and Kirklands. Beautiful day.

We went from Minto to Dartrey, co. Monaghan, by Carlisle and Stranraer; crossed to Larne, but had to sleep at Dundalk, on the 17th. At Dartrey found the Ilchesters, Mr. Herbert, and others. Lady Craven and the Headforts came later. Returned to England on the 27th by Greenore and Holyhead.

For the October number of the 'Review,' Reeve had written an article on the Ashantee War, in which he would seem to have been assisted by Lord Kimberley, then Colonial Secretary. On its appearance, Mr. Pope Hennessy, at this time Governor of the Bahamas, but who, in the preceding year, had been Governor of the Gold Coast, wrote to 'The Editor of the "Edinburgh Review,"' objecting to some of the statements regarding his own conduct, which, he declared, were inaccurate. And, having given utterance to his objections, he continued:—

November 28th.—As I have ventured on fault-finding about one article, I must not deprive myself of the pleasure of congratulating you heartily on another. Since October 1802 no article on foreign affairs has been so apropos as your Cuban one of last October. Here it has been read with avidity and universal satisfaction, and I believe it will do much to guide influential opinion in England at this crisis. I hope to see you return to the subject in January. Remember that your January number, as far as the instruction of M.P.s is concerned, is always an important political one. In view of your dealing with the subject again, I give you a few facts that may perhaps add special interest once more to the 'Edinburgh's' mode of dealing with it.

England is directly concerned in Cuba by its close proximity to the Bahamas. Cay Lobos (British territory) is but fourteen miles from Cay Confites (Cuban territory). That leaves but eight miles of high seas in width. The people of the Bahamas have made frequent complaint to the governor about the conduct of the Spanish authorities in Cuba. In August this year the Governor of the Bahamas sent a memorial to the Captain-General of Cuba about the impediments to the Bahama sponging trade caused by the arbitrary acts of the Spaniards. No notice has been taken of this. It has not even been acknowledged. In 1870 complaints were made to Sir James Walker (my predecessor) that James Fraser and three other British subjects were captured in a Bahama schooner, taken ashore to Cuba, and there shot. The Spaniards justified this by saying that the ship was conveying supplies to the insurgents, and they (the Spaniards) executed Fraser and the others as pirates. In the same year a man named Williams complained that sixty or seventy Spanish soldiers landed at Berry Island (a part of the Bahama colony), chasing Cuban refugees, firing off their guns, and threatening to hang Williams if he did not aid them in their search. Subsequently the Spanish admiral, Melcampo, made a sort of apology for this; but the Captain-General of Cuba, on the other hand, wrote to Sir James Walker, complaining that the British lighthouse-keepers on Berry Island had refused to aid the Spaniards in pursuit of 'pirates' on British soil. Lord Granville took up the matter in a proper spirit. He sent energetic remonstrances to Madrid. He got the Admiralty to telegraph to Sir Rodney Mundy, at Halifax, to despatch ships of war to aid the Governor of the Bahamas in protecting the colony from the raids of the Spaniards. As to the seizing of ships on the high seas under neutral flags, he telegraphed to Sir John Crampton, at Madrid, to say that it would be 'a glaring violation of the law of nations.' The Madrid Government promised to get the Captain-General's proclamation revoked; but my predecessor reported that General Dulce had not revoked it, and he returned to Spain without doing so. The half-and-half revocation that took place left 'exceptional cases' at the discretion of the Spanish cruisers. Hence the case of the 'Virginius.'

The excitement here about the recent executions is intense. Twenty-nine of those shot resided at Nassau. The public feeling is now so strong that it deprives me of power (especially as all British troops are withdrawn) to stop expeditions against the Spaniard, though I am doing my best to allay it and to be strictly neutral. Indeed, in the interest of the peace and well-being of the Bahamas, I have had to write to Lord Kimberley, asking him to use his influence in getting some law-abiding government substituted in Cuba for the present lawless rule of the volunteers. Your article will do much to support H.M. Government in a decided course now.

Believe me, yours faithfully,

J. POPE HENNESSY.

The Journal records here:—

December 8th.—We went to Knowsley, with Lord Cairns. There were there Lord C. Hamilton, Henry Cowper, &c. Lord Sefton shot with us. We killed 827 head on the 9th, 784 head on the 10th, 366 head on the 11th. Went to Liverpool with Lord Cairns on the 12th, and home next day.

To Lord Derby

C. O., December 15th.—The last edition of my translation of Tocqueville's book on France has probably not yet found its way to Knowsley's library, and I shall be much gratified if you will allow me to place a copy there. This edition has the advantage of containing fourteen posthumous chapters not to be found in any other, and these certainly are not the least remarkable part of the work. I was moved to translate them partly by your saying to me one day, 'Can't you give us any more of Tocqueville?'

The Journal goes on:—

To Paris for Christmas. Saw M. Guizot; dined at the Embassy. Dined with Mme. Faucher on Christmas Day; with M. Guizot on the 27th; Camille Rousset and Taine there. On the 28th dined at the Duc de Broglie's, then home minister; Apponys, Prince Orloff, Lord Lyons, Lambert de Sainte-Croix there. Dined on the 29th with the Lyttons at Mme. Gavard's; and on the 30th with the Comte de Paris at De Mussy's.

1874.—The year opened at Paris. Called on M. Guizot and dined with the Raymonds on New Year's Day. Breakfasted with the Duc d'Aumale at Chantilly on the 2nd; first time I had seen him there. Dined at Mohl's with Haussonville, the Lyttons, and Tourgueneff.

Renewed my acquaintance with Drouyn de Lhuys, who related to me the affairs of 1866. Very curious. Dined at the Political Economy Club on the 5th; and at Lytton's on the 6th. Back to London on the 7th.

January 24th.—To Aldermaston, with Lord Aberdare, the Samuel Bakers, Herbert Spencer, Franks and others. Pleasant and interesting; but I had the gout and was laid up for a month. This was the day Gladstone published his fatal address to the electors at Greenwich. Parliament was dissolved on the 26th. We all told Lord Aberdare that the party would be smashed, and so it was. Disraeli's Government came in on February 21st.

21st.—The Master of the Rolls gave judgement in the Handley suit, which gave me the Winkfield property.

The case was shortly described by Mrs. Reeve:—

'There were two wills, one of Edwin Handley, the other that of his two surviving sisters. His will was good as to devise of money, bad as to land; therefore the land passed to the sisters, and their bequests of land come into effect. The property in Winkfield which comes to Henry is a little more than 30 acres. Of course the agricultural value is not very great; but we hope, as building and accommodation land, to make a good thing of it.'

It appears, indeed, that the advisability of settling on it themselves was considered; but there was no house on the property; so that as in either case a house had to be built, the Christchurch site was preferred. In June Reeve sold this Winkfield property for nearly 6,000 L., which—he added to a note of the sale—'enabled me to build Foxholes.'

The following is endorsed:—'M. Guizot on the death of [his daughter] Pauline. The last letter he wrote me with his own hand.'

8 mars.—Je vous remercie de votre sympathie, my dear Sir. J'y comptais. Vous etes un des anciens temoins de ma vie et de mon bonheur. Il a ete grand; mais le bonheur se paye. Je me soumets douloureusement mais sans murmure. La vie est ainsi faite. C'est pour mon gendre Cornelis de Witt que je ressens une pitie profonde. Il a joui pendant vingt-cinq ans de ce que j'ai moi-meme appele le bonheur parfait, l'amour dans le mariage. Il reste seul avec ses sept enfants. Ils viendront tous vivre avec moi, sous les yeux de ma fille Henriette,[Footnote: Mme. Guizot de Witt.] une vraie mere. Revenez nous voir.