_Cannes, April 27th_.--I have a complaint to make of the 'E. R.' last number. In the learned and able article on 'Jesse's Richard III.,' at p. 307, Lingard is referred to as having quoted the commission of the High Constable. I have scanned every line and every word of Lingard and find no such commission. But in a note to the third volume of Hume, note R, the commission is given verbatim from Rymer. Jock Campbell used to hold that a false reference was an offence that ought to be made penal. I don't go so far, but the evil is very great. I have lost three or four hours in consequence. Therefore, pray have inquiry made of your contributor whether or not I am right; and if not, where in Lingard the quotation is. Reeve referred the 'complaint' to Hayward, the writer of the article, who replied:-- I believe B. is right, for when I corrected the proof I looked in vain in Lingard, although I was firmly convinced that he had quoted the document. But pray remind his lordship that, when Campbell spoke of a false reference, he meant one with volume and page. Lord Brougham's answer to this defence is not given, but it is impossible to allow it to pass without protest; for, whatever Campbell may have meant, it is very certain that a false reference, with volume and page cited, by which the falsehood is at once made manifest, is a venial offence in comparison with a false reference given vaguely, which may keep the victim hunting for it for hours, as this one actually did keep Lord Brougham. _From Lord Brougham_ _Cannes, May 7th_.--I wish to suggest to you the positive duty of taking care that justice is done upon the trumpery, and one-sided, and altogether insignificant Life of Pitt by Stanhope. Murray having published it, of course the 'Quarterly' has puffed it, and done so with an entire ignorance of the subject which is hardly conceivable. Therefore take great care before you commit the subject to any unsafe hands. _To Lord Brougham_ _62 Rutland Gate, May 11th_.--As I have lived for many years on terms of personal friendship, and indeed intimacy, with Lord Stanhope, and am indebted to him for many acts of kindness, it would be quite impossible for me to attack his book, even if I thought as ill of it as you do. I shall, therefore, content myself with recording the very different view which I entertain of the success of Mr. Pitt's administration. I think it may be shown that both in peace and in war he was one of the most unsuccessful ministers who ever exercised great power. On these lines Reeve himself wrote the article, which was published in the 'Review' of July, and brought him the following:-- _From Lord Stanhope_ Grosvenor Place, July 17th.