had forged was so strong that the experienced counsel were all deceived by it, and the conduct of Parnell himself showed that he was not sure that it was not the genuine document until he saw it. Au fond the “Times” was right, and its accusation against Parnell was fully justified, but by one of those chances which occur to even the most prudent, there was a defect in the chain of evidence at the most important point.

The animosities developed by the affair found expression in terms of the most unjustifiable imputations of collusion with the forgery, on the part of MacDonald and Mr. Walter, which I have seen repeated in later years; but no one who knew either of the men would for a moment admit that there could be a shadow of justice in the imputation.  Mr. Walter, though of an uncompromising hostility to any political measures or persons that he considered dangerous to the country, was of an inflexible sincerity and honesty, and absolutely incapable of the remotest complicity with a fraud.  No other man of his race have I known in whom the patriotic fire burned more intensely, or who better merited the description of the Latin poet, “Justum et tenacem propositi virum,” or had more of the English bulldog tenacity in a cause which he considered just and of vital importance to the country.  Slow to form antipathies, he was immovable in them once formed, and as constant in his confidences once he found them merited.  To his intense conservatism and antagonism to shifty politics was probably due the unvarying opposition of the “Times” to Home Rule and all other attempts at infringement of the British Constitution, but so far as my own experience goes he never attempted to influence the views of the correspondence.  There were points in which, in regard to Italian and Greek affairs, he differed from me seriously, but he never imposed a hair’s weight on what I had to say, nor do I believe that he intentionally influenced the tone of the paper beyond the exercise of the inevitable control over its national policy.  The antagonism to the United States at the outbreak of the War of Secession was Delane’s, and not in accordance with Mr. Walter’s feeling, but, like most of Delane’s views, borrowed from London society or the government.  The “Times” has its traditions like those of a monarchy, interests to defend which are not in all cases those of an ideal state policy, but are those which have made England what she is, and which are probably those which will keep her what she is the longest and most safely.  And of these interests, and of this inflexible maintenance of them, John Walter was the most strenuous of supporters.  He was a consistent liberal as far as he felt liberalism to be perfectly safe, but he had the most vivid dislike of Gladstone and his ways; a dislike dating from their earliest contact in the House of Commons, long before Gladstone adopted Home Rule.  And to this nature the character of MacDonald responded as the natural executive.  The following letter which I received from Mr. Walter in reply to mine of grief at the death of MacDonald, tells the story of their relation better than I can.