Lord Brougham's next letter refers to one of the few unpleasant passages in Reeve's life. In October 1863 the 'Edinburgh Review' had an article on J. G. Phillimore's 'Reign of George III.,' in which the book was somewhat roughly handled. That the comment was honest is quite certain; that it was just would probably be the opinion of most historical students; but Mr. Phillimore thought that it was neither one nor the other, and being--as the 'Saturday Review' described him--one whose 'normal position was that of a belligerent,' he replied to the review by a studiously offensive and personal pamphlet, [Footnote: This sensitiveness to literary criticism was, perhaps, a family failing. Some forty years before, Phillimore's uncle, Sir John Phillimore, was fined 100L. for bludgeoning James, the author of the _Naval History_, for some unflattering remarks on the discipline of the 'Eurotas' whilst under his command.] bearing the title 'Reply to the Misrepresentations of the "Edinburgh Review."' According to this, the article was a spiteful attack made by 'Mr. Reeve' himself; it was mainly noticeable for its ignorance, its malice, its time-serving toadyism of Lord Stanhope, and should be contrasted with another article in the same number of the 'Review' on 'Austin on Jurisprudence,' which was outrageously belauded because Austin was 'Mr. Reeve's' uncle. In point of fact, the article on Phillimore was written by the present Judge O'Connor Morris, and that on Austin by John Stuart Mill, neither of whom was an intimate friend of the editor's. Phillimore did not notice, or was not sufficiently acquainted with Reeve's family history to appraise yet another article on 'Tara: a Mahratta Tale,' by Captain Meadows Taylor--Reeve's cousin. If he had, he would certainly have made it the subject of some more scurrilities. _Cannes, January 7th_.--I have only a moment before the post goes to write, and it may be too late another day. Pray allude to Phillimore's pamphlet, and give some explanation on certain parts of it. I have not read the whole of it, but friends here who borrowed it of me have, and they tell me that some explanation is required. They are a good deal prejudiced, however, owing to your having praised Stanhope's book, of which they have a very bad opinion. I myself rather agree with them, though not going to the same length. Of Phillimore, I only know that he did good service in the Commons for a public prosecutor, and was very shabbily supported by the friends of Law Amendment. But I had a very poor opinion of the book, though he is a very clever man, and the Yankees considered him the first man in the House of Commons. Reeve's letters for several months had been leading up to the next sad entry in the Journal. For a woman of seventy-five, a serious and prolonged illness could scarcely have any other issue.