Poor Macaulay, I would give as a foil--of course, only to yourself,
privately. He had great abilities; and though I widely differed with him in
his views of history--which I, being of the science school, thought should
be different from an anecdote book, yet I admit the great merits of his
work, and especially of his essays. But I much objected to his running away
from our death-struggle in 1834, though his defence was that his sisters
would have to go out in the world as milliners if he stayed to fight with
us. I had myself made such sacrifices that I felt entitled to complain.
However, I pass over that on the ground he gave. But, then, what is to be
said of two sessions in the House of Lords without one word of help to the
Liberal cause, or indeed to any cause? What but that it was owing to the
fear of making a speech which would be thought a failure--that is, would
be injurious to his former speeches. Now, such a consideration as this J.
Austin was wholly incapable of allowing even to cross his mind. He acted on
what he conceived were just principles, and sacrificed to them all regard
for himself. How differently did those men act of whose set Macaulay
was!--his father, Stephen, H. Thornton, &c. However, his loss is a very
melancholy one, because he goes out of the world in full possession of his
faculties, and in more than just appreciation of his merits.

The Journal for 1860 begins:--

The new year opened at Chevening on a visit to Lord Stanhope. The party
consisted of the Morleys, Hayward, Goldwin Smith, and afterwards the
Grotes.

I went to Chevening again in 1862; and for a third time, with Christine, in
1885; the host changed, but the same hospitality.

We sent a round-robin to the Dean of Westminster, begging that Macaulay