In spite of your own preference for the 'wild freshness of morning' and all the dewdrops hanging on the roses, I must be allowed to assure you that, in my poor judgement, they are improved by this severe revision, and that the judicial style is, like Musidora, when 'unadorned adorned the most.' Of that style I think these judgements will be quoted hereafter as masterly specimens. _From Lord Kingsdown_ Torry Hill, Sittingbourne: January 7th, 1867. My dear Reeve,--I have read your paper, and have no hesitation in saying that I think the smallness of your salary quite a scandal and a disgrace to the Court of which you are so important an officer. Knowing as I do the past services which, during a period of more than twenty years, you have rendered to the board, whilst its position has been gradually settling, I should say that 2,000 L. a year would be not at all more than a fair remuneration to you during the remainder of your term of office. If the country could be certain, by the same salary, of securing an equally efficient successor, I should think it money well laid out. Your duties are of a very peculiar character; and often require, in addition to the qualities required for the discharge of the ordinary routine duties of a registrar, others of a much rarer description. The correspondence with the different tribunals whose decisions are reviewed, and with the different departments of the Government, which are sometimes disposed to shift to the Judicial Committee the determination of matters not properly belonging to it, demand not unfrequently the exercise of great tact, discretion, and delicacy. But unfortunately a large salary does not always secure services of corresponding value, and sometimes, I am afraid, rather has an opposite tendency, and operates as a temptation to jobbery. On the whole, I should say that 1,500 L. a year would be a fair offer to a new man; but I think that the Treasury should have the power to increase it to any amount not exceeding 2,000 L. after ten or fifteen years' service, on the recommendation of the committee. The next letter, from Lord Wensleydale, is interesting as a piece of verbal criticism; showing, also, how a pilot in avoiding Scylla may easily run his bark into Charybdis, or how a writer, whilst objecting to a harmless 'firstly,' may perpetrate an atrocious 'differ with.' Ampthill Park, January 31st. My dear Reeve,--I was much pleased to hear that 'firstly' was an error. I hope you will take some course to indicate your judgement--'a very best authority'--and to prevent the 'Edinburgh Review' giving the word its high authority. I have taken every opportunity to amend Acts of Parliament when I find the error in Dom. Proc. I have a sort of mania on the subject. I have not had an opportunity of looking at the Bishop of Oxford's case. I differ with him entirely about the Banns case, and, between ourselves, think he is oily and saponaceous.--Yours ever sincerely, WENSLEYDALE.