This year (1853) I was drawn into an epistolary controversy with Mr. Macaulay in reference to an edition of his speeches which I had collected and published. Subsequently the distinguished essayist and historian rated me so soundly in print for my share in this transaction that 1 was induced to take counsel's opinion as to whether an action for libel would lie. The reply was in the affirmative, but I was warned at the same time that it was doubtful whether any of the judges would venture to sum up against the great man, consequently all idea of seeking legal redress had to be abandoned. Mr. Macaulay's parliamentary speeches, I should mention, had been taken from “Hansard's Debates,” and Mr. Hansard had been paid his own demand for the privilege. At my interview with Mr. Hansard I learnt from him that before any speech was published in “the Debates” a proof was invariably sent to the M.P. who had delivered it, and who returned the proof if any correction were necessary within a certain number of weeks; otherwise it was assumed, in accordance with an understanding of which all the members were cognisant, that the speech might be put to press as it stood. I mention this because Mr. Macaulay based his indignation against me on a misrepresentation of his own to the effect that I had charged myself with editing his orations, whereas, so far as the parliamentary speeches were concerned, I had simply undertaken to reprint them verbatim from “Hansard,” which in those days was commonly accepted in the House of Commons as an unimpeachable authority.