part i

., ii., 272, 274.

[307] [A few references to the _Remains_ illustrating this are subjoined, if any one cares to compare them with these recollections: i., pp. 7, 13, 18, 26, 106, 184, 199, 200-204.]

[308] A prior and corroborative sketch is appended, by the same hand:

From LETTERS OF FREDERIC LORD BLACHFORD, UNDER-SEC. OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, 1860-1871. EDITED BY GEORGE EDEN MARINDIN. London: Murray, 1896.

[By the kind permission of G. E. Marindin, Esq.]

‘[Hurrell Froude] was anything but “learned.” In lecture he gave you the idea of not being, in knowledge, so very much in advance of those whom he taught; but he had a fine taste, a quick and piercing precision of thought, a fertility and depth of reasoning, which stimulated a mind which had any quickness and activity. He had an interest in everything; he would draw with you, sail on the river with you, talk philosophy or politics with you, ride over fences with you, skate with you: all with a kind of joyous enjoyment. Mischief seems to have been his snare as a boy, and a controlled delight in what was on the edge of mischief gave a kind of verve to his character as a man. This made him charming to those whom he liked. But then he did not choose to like any whom he did not respect; and he could be as hard and sharp as you please on what he thought bad, [_i.e._,] profane, vicious, or coxcombical.’

* * * * *

‘In Newman’s sermons and H. F.’s conversation, I found an uncompromising devotion to religion, with discouragement of anything like gushing profession … also a religion which did not reject, but aspired to embody in itself, any form of art and literature, poetry, philosophy, and even science, which could be pressed into the service of Christianity.’

[309] Its owner and lover for more than fifty years has written a summary of its history upon the fly-leaf.

[310] Frederic Rogers, Lord Blachford.

[311] The Rev. John Keble.

[312] In the later editions, the poem appears without indication of Froude’s name.

[313] The first draught of this paper appeared under the title ‘The Lives of Whitfield and Froude: Oxford Catholicism,’ in the _Edinburgh Review_, vol. lxvii., pp. 500-535: the issue for July, 1838. Rogers writes to Newman, on October 4 of that year: ‘I was sorry to hear that your friend Mr. Stephen of the Colonial Office was the author of the article on Froude, though that is better than if it had been a younger man. Doyle talked of it, and spoke of the _Remains_ as having produced the impression of an unamiable character!’ (_Letters of Lord Blachford_, edited by George Eden Marindin, 1896, p. 51).

[314] Misprinted ‘B.’ in these Essays. ‘P.’ is Prevost, in whose company Hurrell was when this entry was made, Oct. 2, 1826.

[315] ‘Vacant’ in text.

[316] In _written_ prayers.

[317] Arnold to Dr. Hawkins, 1838. _Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, D.D._, by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, M.A. London: Fellowes, 1844, ii., 125.

[318] [I say ‘tacitly,’ because their avowed acquiescence first appeared in the Preface to the second part of the _Remains_, published in the following year.]

[319] Not quite correctly quoted. ‘[The Church] became a ready prey to the rapacious Henry. It had been polluted; it fell: shall it ever rise again?’ State Interference in Matters Spiritual, _Remains_,