genius, you could not have the tried of eighty years until eighty years are gone. This old, dull country which the filigree nations laugh at, with her inconsistencies and her prejudices, how sound at heart she is in the way she does her hero-worship, and what unique heroes hers are!-Duty, the watchword of Nelson and Wellington-the last sublime battle-cry of the one and long life-law of the other-and no splash nor dash nor French theatricals about either of them.

His long self-sacrifice of life is o'er.

Nelson, Ade

Tennyson has put it all into one pregnant line. laide, Wellington-these have been the great mournings of England in this century; and Peel, because men thought there was a sacrifice in him too, in his degree. Yes, Goodness, Duty, Sacrifice these are the qualities that England honours. She gapes and wonders every now and then, like an awkward peasant, at some other things-railway kings, electro-biology, and other trumperies-but nothing stirs her grand old heart down to its central deeps universally and long except the Right. She puts on her shawl very badly, and she is awkward enough in a concert-room, scarcely knowing a Swedish nightingale from a jackdaw; but-blessings large and long upon her !-she knows how to teach her sons to sink like men amongst sharks and billows, without parade, without display, as if duty were the most natural thing in the world, and she never mistakes long an actor for a hero or a hero for an actor. Men like Arnold and Wordsworth she recognises at last-men like Wellington, more visibly right, at once, and with unalterable fidelity. I do love my dear old blundering Country, and I forgive her the few deaths caused at the lying-in-state by her awkwardness and want of experience in spectacles, and with plenary indulgence prospective all the mistakes and even absurdities she will probably be guilty of to-morrow.

Christmas Eve, 1852.

My dear -Though I am in haste to get to work, it being Christmas Eve, I will not let your note remain unanswered; but I fear it must be done concisely.

And first, let me say that I can deeply appreciate any views which have not egotism for their basis; views like yours, which are earnest and unselfish.

Perhaps I mistake them; but if I do not, the 'greatest happiness' theory seems to lie at the root of them. Now, granting that this is the motive of the Supreme Mind (which I do only for the sake of argument), I believe it cannot be ours, safely, ever. I do not doubt that duty will be found, on the inductions of a very large experience, to coincide with the greatest happiness; but I believe, that if the happiness of others were the motive, duty would often be sacrificed, because we cannot always see its ultimate tendencies; and to do right will sometimes appear the worst for others that can be imagined.

I entirely disagree with your conceptions of His motives. To do His Father's will, to drink the appointed cup, to submit to a law of the universe, 'Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground,' &c., these were His motives; in every form of words He says so. No doubt, at times He speaks as foreseeing the good which would result; but never that I know of does He speak of that as His chief motive. Of course, to see that ultimate good and duty coincide makes duty easier, and gave Him comfort and joy; but in his darker hours the good seemed hidden, and perhaps problematical. I think I cannot be mistaken here. Could you know how I have lived in His mind, and tried to understand Him, till comprehension became adoration, you would think so. I am not pretending to a superior appreciation beyond yours-except only on this ground, that professionally forced to the contemplation, and forced more terribly by doubts and difficulties that nearly shattered morals and life, till I was left alone with myself and Him, I am, perhaps, qualified to speak with a decision that would be otherwise dogmatism.

I think you mistook what I said about infinitesimal fractions of harm divided among numbers. What I meant was, that the motive of doing right because of the harm that results from doing wrong would be insufficient in strong temptation; when the argument would run fairly enough, 'Intense present joy to one individual of the world, at least-myself, and possible harm divided among so many as to be inappreciable by any. Why should I hesitate to enjoy?'

In the preventive check principle, this is, I think, indisputable. No human being, I suppose, ever abstained from marriage, if really in love, on consideration of the results his marriage might hereafter have on the labour market.

And I quite agree with you, the case you put is parallel, that of benevolent actions. When one sees how the noblest schemes fail, or begins to question the results of this or that act, uncertain whether it will or not produce good, I confess it seems to me that, with this motive only, deep-thinking or sadly-feeling hearts would let all opportunities go by. O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you-how long shall I suffer you?

But anything, my dear to abolish that detestable doctrine which is preached in some evangelical pulpits, that selfhappification is the great duty, or, as they call it, saving one's own soul; which is merely prudence on a large scale, and makes worldly selfishness wrong, only because it is a shortsighted calculation.

Act, if you can, for the general good; or, rather, think that you act so, for your heart is too feminine and tender to be swayed by abstractions.

To express, in a sentence or two, my feelings :—

God's will not man's happiness.

Right: not a balance of profit and loss.

God's will, and Right, will eventuate in man's happiness, and in a balance of profit; but with these things I feel myself unable to grapple.

Do not think I treat your views or arguments lightly. I honour you for them. And besides, I am inclined to think that

I have attacked the tendencies of your views, rather than the views you really hold.

But I have written so hurriedly, that I fear this hasty sketch is not worth sending. May God bless you and teach you— better than I can—and teach me, for I deeply need it, and feel only that truth is infinite, and my guesses at it are few and blundering.

Yours, with most sincere esteem,

F. W. R.

151

CHAPTER XI.

1853.

Friendship of Mr. Robertson with Lady Byron-State of his HealthAdvance of Disease-Sermons of this Year-The Principles which underlie his Teaching—Adoration of the Virgin-Sacrament of the Mass-Purgatory-Apostolical Succession-The Seven Sacraments-Suggestive, not Dogmatic Teaching-The Peace-Maker— Foundation of his Teaching-His Position with regard to Unitarianism-Lecture on Wordsworth-Letter in answer to a Criticism, in which he discloses the loneliness of his Heart-Wordsworth and High Churchism-Letter replying to one of the HighChurch Party who urged him to unite himself to them—Increasing Weakness-Visit to Cheltenham-His Congregation offers him a Curate The Vicar puts a veto on his Choice-Last Sermons preached in Trinity Chapel, May 29, 1853.

URING the first few months of 1853, Mr. Robertson

D seems to have been frequently at Esher, where Lady

Byron lived. He had known her almost from the time of his arrival at Brighton, and acquaintance soon passed into a deep and lasting friendship. He said of her that she was one of the noblest and purest women he had ever met. 'Her calm subdued character,' he writes, warm sympathy, and manifold wisdom have been one of my greatest privileges here.' He heard from her the whole history of her life, and she committed into his hands the charge of publishing, after her decease, her memoirs and letters. This was, to her