power of entering on anything but mere technical facts as to the election. This led the warm opposers to wish for a suit under the Clergy Discipline Act through my court: I sending it to the Arches. I granted them letters of request. Then the promoters asked me to try to bring Dr. H. privately to the same explanations which would be required. I assented, and thus was drawn unawares into a judicial position. This required a conscientious study of the works: and this has ended in my conviction that no articles can be made good against him in my withdrawing the letters of requesting and sending to the Times a letter to Dr. H., which I hope will hold him to such explanations I have got, and does him the substantial justice I think due to him. The extracts made in 1834 to show his unsoundness by Newman, and from which I chiefly drew my opinion of the work, are most Jesuitically unfair. If I had not withdrawn the "letters," and the Articles had not broken down, still Dr. H. would have been out of the jurisdiction of the Court before any sentence can be given. All this does not touch Lord John's wantonness in making such an appointment. Will you send me your views on it when you see my letter. I wish you heartily, my dear Mr. Croker, every blessing in the New Year of life to which God has so graciously brought you, and am, my dear Mr. Croker, with very affectionate remembrances to your ladies,

Ever most truly yours,

ΟΧΟΝ.

As there is but one more letter of Lord George Bentinck's to add to this correspondence, it is desirable to place it here, although it belongs to a later date. It was written in the month of March, 1848, in the midst of a great pressure of business; for in addition to his usual parliamentary duties, Lord George Bentinck was serving on two important committees on the committee to inquire into the state of the sugar and coffee industries, and on that which was seeking to ascertain the causes of the prevailing commercial distress. The industry and zeal which he brought to his new avocations have never been exceeded by any man in Parliament. He attended his committee meetings, and went from them to the

House of Commons, where he remained till the close of the sitting. "This was the period of his life," says Mr. Disraeli, "when he was frequently in the habit of working eighteen hours a day." According to the same authority, he had made great progress towards acquiring the habit of living without food, for he "breakfasted on dry toast," and "took no sustenance" all day, or all night, until Parliament was up, 'dining at White's half-past two o'clock in the morning."

Lord George Bentinck to Mr. Croker.

MY DEAR MR. CROKER,

Harcourt House, March 2nd, 1848.

I have been so busy, sitting long days, and six days a week, on two committees, that I forgot to write to you.

You ask me of Disraeli's manner of speaking and effectiveness in debate? I will answer you by giving you my brother Henry's observations on the various speakers in the House. Henry is rather a cynical critic. He expressed himself greatly disappointed with Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, and concluded by saying that Disraeli was the only man he had heard who at all came up to his ideas of an orator.

His speeches this session have been first-rate. His last speech, altogether burked in the Times, but pretty well given in the Post,' [was] admirable. He cuts Cobden to ribbons; and Cobden writhes and quails under him just as Peel did in 1846. And mark my words, spite of Lord Stanley, Major Beresford, and Mr. Phillips and the Herald, it will end before two sessions are out in Disraeli being the chosen leader of the party; but I think it will not be under Lord Stanley's banner, whether he turns his coat on the Jew Bill or not.

The Budget has damned the Whig Government in the country. The Bank Charter Act, to which they and Peel have linked their political existence, has been smashed to atoms in the Secret Committee by witnesses whose dicta will pass for gospel with the commercial world. Railways have had little or nothing to do with the monetary difficulties, which, but for the restrictions of the Bank Charter Act, would have passed by without observation, and certainly without a panic. The Bank Charter Act restrains gold from going out of

the country. "Gold shall not go out, means food shall not come in." These are the words of the most striking witness I ever listened to; they were spoken by old Sam Gurney. Neither the Bank of England nor the railways are to blame, it was all the Act of 1844. Peel's Bank Charter Act "has done it all."

Nothing but the pitiful disunion of the Protectionist party could prevent the Whig Government and the entire Free-trade policy from being overthrown; the country are sick of both.* Always most sincerely yours,

G. BENTINCK.

At the end of the Session, Lord George Bentinck went to Welbeck, and set out one morning in September to walk to Thoresby, the second of the three famous "Dukeries" which comprise within their domains the scenes of Robin Hood's most popular exploits, and some of the grandest forest-trees and avenues now remaining in England. From Welbeck to Thoresby the path lies chiefly through glades of unrivalled beauty and verdure, shaded by oaks, beeches, and yews of unknown antiquity. So much sylvan beauty is scarcely to be found elsewhere in these islands. A walk such as this might well bring rest to the jaded mind; to Lord George Bentinck it brought everlasting rest. He was found lying face downwards upon the ground, quite dead; more than that no one has ever known. Some hours before, he had been seen leaning against a gate, with his head bent down. It was conjectured that he had at that time been struck with a fatal attack of heart disease; but all is mere conjecture. Thus brief and strange was the career of a man who, had he lived, would undoubtedly have made a great name in the political annals of his country.

["It was as much for the sake of trade and manufactures as of agriculture that they opposed free trade; and I remember that Lord George Bentinck said that the first who would wish again for protection would be the manufacturing interest of Great Britain."-Letter of the Duke of Rulland to the Times,' March 29th, 1883.]

CHAPTER XXVI.

1848-1849.

General Correspondence of these and preceding Years - Death of Sir William Follett in 1845-His Early Success at the Bar-Great and Peculiar Reputation-His Politics-His Letter on his Illness-Correspondence between Mr. Croker, Lord Lyndhurst, and Sir James Graham Letter from the Duke of Wellington on the Battle of Quatre Bras-Anecdotes of Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville-Charges against Mr. Huskisson of Dabbling in the Funds-Lord Liverpool's Family and Character-Bishop Phillpotts on Forms of "Grace before Meat "-Lord Aberdeen on the Homeric Poems-Sir P. Francis and Junius A Letter of Advice to Sir G. Sinclair-Pitt and the "Doctor" -Reminiscences of the Duke of Wellington-Division of Land into Small Holdings-Mr. Henry Drummond's Opinion-The Bishop of Oxford on the Conservative Leaders-" Blundering Feebleness and Dishonest Audacity "-Lord Lonsdale on French Affairs-Notes on Pope by Mr. Hallam and Samuel Rogers-The Duke of Wellington and French Politics-Proposed Statue to Lord George Bentinck-The Duke's Recollections of Lord Castlereagh-Letters from Mr. Charles Arbuthnot-And from Mr. Lockhart-Macaulay's History-Bishop Phillpotts' Criticisms-Remarks of the Duke of Rutland M. Guizot on the Corn Laws Letters from Mr. J. C. Herries-Lord Lonsdale and Arthur Young's Travels-Notes on Difficult Passages in Pope by Lord Mahon.

THE correspondence of these two years is of a very miscellaneous character,* and before entering upon it, it will be necessary to introduce a few letters relating to the general events of the three preceding years. The political letters

There is a total and unaccountable absence of letters on political affairs.

from 1845 to 1847 are so important, that it seemed advisable to break their sequence as little as possible, and therefore no reference has yet been made to an event which was a great affliction to Mr. Croker personally, and a loss to the whole country-the death of Sir William Follett, Attorney-General in the second Administration of Sir Robert Peel. He had long been an intimate friend of Mr. Croker, and, in fact, was Mrs. Croker's cousin. Moreover, he had married a ward of Mr. Croker's, Miss Giffard, daughter of Sir Hardinge Giffard, formerly Chief Justice of Ceylon, who had been at Dublin University with Mr. Croker. Sir William Follett was Solicitor-General in Sir Robert Peel's first Administration, in 1835, and took the same post on Peel's return to office. He afterwards became Attorney-General, and at the time of his death, in 1845, he was only forty-seven. Few men have ever risen to eminence at the bar at so early a period of life, and few have been so universally popular, with the public as well as with the profession. The Times,† in reviewing his career, remarked that he was "not only the most eminent lawyer of the present day, but a man who had acquired a much higher reputation than usually belongs even to the first member of the bar. He had surpassed his contemporaries in so extraordinary a degree, that his merits, power, and authority, as an adviser and an advocate, were never estimated by ordinary rules, or rewarded in the proportion and manner of other men." The writer went on to state that Follett had been a Whig at Cambridge, and only adopted Tory principles as he grew older, but against this passage Mr. Croker made the following memorandum :—

"I cannot say anything about Follett's politics at Cam

* Sir Hardinge Giffard was a brother of Dr. Stanley Giffard, for some years editor of the Standard, and father of the present Sir Hardinge Giffard. † Monday, June 30th, 1845.