I have a plan of which I wish to know your opinion.  In ten days, or thereabouts, I set off for France, where I hope to pass six weeks.  I shall be in the best society, that of the Duc de Broglie, Guizot, and so on.  I think of writing an article on the Politics of France since the Restoration, with characters of the principal public men, and a parallel between the present state of France and that of England.  I think that this might be made an article of extraordinary interest.  I do not say that I could make it so.  It must, you will perceive, be a long paper, however concise I may try to be; but as the subject is important, and I am not generally diffuse, you must not stint me.  If you like this scheme, let me know as soon as possible.

Ever yours truly

T. B. Macaulay.

It cannot be denied that there was some ground for the imputation of systematic puffing which Macaulay urges with a freedom that a modern editor would hardly permit to the most valued contributor.  Brougham had made a speech on Slavery in the House of Commons; but time was wanting to get the Corrected Report published soon enough for him to obtain his tribute of praise in the body of the Review.  The unhappy Mr. Napier was actually reduced to append a notice to the July number regretting that “this powerful speech, which, as we are well informed, produced an impression on those who heard it not likely to be forgotten, or to remain barren of effects, should have reached us at a moment when it was no longer possible for us to notice its contents at any length. . . .  On the eve of a general election to the first Parliament of a new reign, we could have wished to be able to contribute our aid towards the diffusion of the facts and arguments here so strikingly and commandingly stated and enforced, among those who are about to exercise the elective franchise. . . .  We trust that means will be taken to give the widest possible circulation to the Corrected Report.  Unfortunately, we can, at present, do nothing more than lay before our readers its glowing peroration—­ so worthy of this great orator, this unwearied friend of liberty and humanity.”

To Macvey Napier, Esq.

Paris:  September 16, 1830.

My dear Sir,—­I have just received your letter, and I cannot deny that I am much vexed at what has happened.  It is not very agreeable to find that I have thrown away the labour, the not unsuccessful labour as I thought, of a month; particularly as I have not many months of perfect leisure.  This would not have happened if Brougham had notified his intentions to you earlier, as he ought in courtesy to you, and to everybody connected with the Review, to have done.  He must have known that this French question was one on which many people would be desirous to write.