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 might be buried in the Abbey. He was buried there on January 9th. I was there. The same day we started for Paris by Southampton. Saw the Circourts, Rauzans, Guizots, &c. Charles Greville had introduced me to Fould, then minister of finance. On Sunday, January 15th, Fould told me of the conclusion of the treaty of commerce with England, and the same evening we all dined at M. Chevalier's, with Cobden, Lavergne, Passy, Parieu, and Wolowski--the promoters and authors of the treaty. The next day (16th) I dined with Fould at a state dinner; Metternichs, Bassanos, Auber, Ste.-Beuve, Bourqueney. I took down Mrs. Baring. Lord Brougham was also in Paris. Albert Pourtales, my old fellow-pupil at Geneva, was now Prussian ambassador; saw a good deal of him. This was a very interesting visit to Paris.