April 11th.—Started with Christine and Circourt for Paris viâ Havre, and at Rouen paid a visit to the Cardinal-Archbishop (Bonnechose).

The publication in 1864 of three volumes of the letters of Marie Antoinette, under the title 'Louis XVI., Marie Antoinette et Madame Elisabeth. Lettres et Documents inédits;' publiés par F. Feuillet de Conches, and of another volume—' Correspondance inédite de Marie Antoinette. Publiée sur les Documents originaux;' par le Comte Paul Vogt d'Hunolstein—had excited a keen controversy, in which one party, led by Professor von Sybel, the historian of the Revolution, maintained that the letters were forgeries. On the other hand, Reeve wrote an article for the 'Edinburgh Review' of April 1866, on the 'Correspondence of Marie Antoinette' in which he argued that the letters edited by M. d'Hunolstein were of very doubtful authenticity, but that those of the larger work of M. Feuillet de Conches were genuine. His visit to Paris gave him the opportunity to make a further examination, of which, and his interview with Sybel, he wrote a curious account.

Sunday, April 15th.—I called on M. Feuillet de Conches, the editor of the Marie Antoinette letters, whose authenticity is impugned, and on leaving his house I called on Lavergne, where I met M. de Sybel, the German professor, by whom these charges have been most actively brought and disseminated. I found that M. de Sybel, though in Paris, had not seen anything of Feuillet's collection, though he had publicly stated that he was going to Paris to clear up the whole story. Upon this I assured him (as was the fact) that I knew Feuillet would receive him with the utmost courtesy, if he would call upon him, and would show him anything and everything in his collections bearing on this matter; and as he appeared to hesitate, I offered myself to conduct and introduce him. Upon this he hesitated still more, and at last said that the fact was that his mind was so fully made up on the subject, and his conviction that these documents are forged is so complete, that no amount of ocular evidence would shake it, and he should only conclude that the author of these fabrications was a very skilful fellow.

Upon this I desisted from any further attempt to bring M. de Sybel acquainted with M. Feuillet's collection, but I made this note of the conversation (which took place in the presence of M. de Lavergne) to show how strong M. de Sybel's prepossessions are. I have myself again examined the documents, and though I have doubts as to one or two of them, said to proceed from the Abbé Vermond's papers, I see no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of the vast majority of the letters of the Queen which Feuillet possesses.

Home on April 26th.

May.—Dr. Watson said, dining at the Literary Club, that he had been present at the death of Lord Palmerston. He retained his usual courtesy and cheerfulness in his last illness, and when Lady Palmerston came into the room he kissed his hand to her. The immediate cause of his death was his taking a walk on the terrace at Brocket without his hat. The apothecary remonstrated—upon which he said: 'Oh! it's only what the bathers call taking a "header."' As the hour of dissolution approached he lost his consciousness, but still spoke occasionally. His last words were (apparently as if his mind was at work on a treaty) 'That's article ninety-eight; now go on to the next.' Very characteristic end.

From M. Guizot

Val Richer, June 9th.—I had little doubt of the war, and I now consider it as begun. With the exception of the Italians and M. de Bismarck, everyone is entering on it with regret and uneasiness. I have never known France so unanimous in the desire for peace; but notwithstanding the injury to our interests and the shock to our opinions, the country has no confidence in its right to resist, and has lost the habit of it. There will be grumblings and prophecies of misfortune, but there will be no opposition; and if there should be any military success, followed by territorial aggrandisement, people will forget their ill humour, and will even applaud a little, but always without confidence. It is impossible to stray with impunity from the path of sound policy; as soon as we leave it, we enter on the wrong path and advance by that. In this life it is not possible to remain stationary.

I understand your political attitude. There is no reason why you should take part in the struggle; but what I do not understand, what I regret, is the manifest uncertainty of your opinions. Not only do you do nothing, but you seem as if you did not know what to believe. As lookers-on you are undecided, as actors you are inert. In the state of trouble and weakness in which the intelligence of Europe is now plunged, you, simply by letting your opinions be clearly seen, by the directness of your language, might have an enormous influence on the course of events. But in England, as everywhere else, the idea of moral force seems lost. It is true that such idea requires a knowledge of what one thinks, and of what one desires. It is possible not to give material support to a cause, but it is necessary to have one.

In any case, I am extremely glad that Lord Clarendon remains at the Foreign Office. He will, perhaps, see more clearly, will act with less want of foresight than others. Is it true that, on account of the state of affairs on the Continent, there is in England a tacit suspension of hostilities between the two parties, and that the Cabinet is no longer seriously attacked?…