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.