From Mr. Robert Lytton [Footnote: At this time secretary of legation at Lisbon, and known in the world of letters as 'Owen Meredith.' Afterwards Earl Lytton.]
Lisbon, February 22nd.
My dear Mr. Reeve,—I am ashamed of having left so long unanswered your last very kind letter. But for the last three weeks I have had little leisure, and less health to enjoy it. Indeed, this is really my first free moment since your letter reached me. Your excellent and welcome news of Emily's engagement [Footnote: Lady Emily Villiers. See ante.] to Odo Russell was confirmed by the same post in a line from Emily to Edith, [Footnote: Mrs. Lytton, the Lady Emily's first cousin.] and has given us the greatest pleasure—me especially; for I have a great regard for Odo, and any other settlement of this particular Roman question [Footnote: Odo Russell was at this time, and had been for the last ten years, living at Rome, practically—though not formally—ambassador to the Vatican.] would have much disappointed my hopes. Emily, in her letter to my wife, spoke of remaining at Rome for another month or more (the marriage not being fixed to take place before May, at the Grove); but I see by the papers that Lord Clarendon is already on his way homeward, and I am much intrigué by that article in the 'Times,' which has, I see, been re-echoed by other papers, suggesting some modification in the present Cabinet on account of Lord Derby's health.
The present Portuguese Government does not seem to be at all favourably disposed towards Mr. Flores, or to think more highly of him than you do. But in this country one can never be quite sure what the pressure of political opposition or support may wring from a weak Government in the way of concession to any intriguant; and, if Flores can command votes, he may be listened to; otherwise not, I fancy.
The monthly F. O. bag has just brought me the January 'Edinburgh,' for which a thousand thanks. I have not yet had time to cut the leaves of it. Pray accept my best thanks for the cheque mentioned in your letter. I am all the more grateful to you for the good will on behalf of 'Chronicles and Characters,' to which you so kindly and generously give renewed expression, because I have just seen what I cannot but think a very unjust notice of the book in the 'Athenaeum.' In endeavouring to illustrate a continuous strain of thought passing over a wide range of subject, one of my chief aims was diversity of form and variety of style; but there can be no doubt that versatility is always in danger of running into imitation. Play always on the Jew's harp, and no one will accuse you of imitating the tone of any other instrument. I do not pretend that my own instrument is an organ: but I would rather it should be the smallest harmonicum than the strongest and shrillest Jew's harp.
From Mr. S. H. Walpole
Ealing, March 29th.
My dear Mr. Reeve,—I am quite ashamed of myself for not having thanked you before for your valuable hints about the effect and ultimate consequences of Gladstone's motion. [Footnote: March 30th, for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, of which notice was given on March 23rd.] I have long thought that his aim and object has been for years to separate the Church from the State, and so set up an episcopal and sacerdotal power, which would endeavour to exercise an unbounded control over the consciences, actions, and private judgement of men. The only check upon this is the supremacy of the civil power in the external government of the Church, and the obligation of the clergy to submit and subscribe to the doctrine and liturgy which, once for all, the Church and State have concurred in prescribing. All ritualism, all tractarianism, and much high-churchism is in secret, if not in avowed, rebellion against such a supremacy; and if it [Footnote: Sc. the supremacy of the civil power.] could only be struck down in Ireland, it would not be long before an attack on it was made in England. What may happen to-morrow I cannot regard with much satisfaction. Gladstone's motion is the most impudent assault on the Crown which any ex-minister ever made; and Stanley's amendment is an illogical surrender of our best defence. He ought to have ended in plain words, by saying that 'the House is of opinion that the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Ireland would be contrary to, and in direct violation of, the fundamental and essential articles of the Treaty of Union.' The country would have then understood what we were about; it can hardly understand it now.
I am out of heart and have many misgivings when ex-ministers of the Crown, and the actual minister of the Crown, assail or abandon the Crown's prerogative for the value of place and power.
Yours always very sincerely,