—Your letter just received alarms me. I thought you felt quite sure that the Bishop of Norwich had already proposed Mr. Maddock to the Archbishop. So you said last Thursday week, after the meeting at Charing Cross. I had a letter since from Hutt, in which he says something about Maddock's name being submitted along with others. But I thought it such nonsense, that I paid no attention to it. But it must be attended to now.

As I understand the case, Mr. Maddock, at your earnest instance, consented to be proposed. That is one thing: but it is a totally different thing to be proposed along with others, or as a candidate: and to that Mr. Maddock did not consent, and probably will not consent now. If so, some other person will be proposed, and you and Mr. Maddock will have been "made fools of." Probably, too, the "other" name may not be, in the Archbishop's eyes, so unexceptionable as Mr. Maddock's: and in that case, his Grace will probably take the affair into his own hands; whereby those may be grievously disappointed who now think of proposing another name along with Maddock's. So there is great impropriety towards you and Maddock (not to mention the Bishop of Norwich, whose adoption of Maddock is a great fact in the case), and great page 232impolicy also in the putting of any other name along with Maddock's. That is, there is both impropriety and impolicy, unless it be done in a, form of respect towards the Archbishop; the selection appearing to be his, though you know beforehand that he will select Maddock.

If we were together you would say—What would you do? The answer is—Were I in your place, I would go straight to the Bishop of Norwich, tell him the whole case, and ask him to direct you. He is sure, I believe, to advise the wisest and most effectual course: and though his willingness makes one ashamed to put trouble on him, yet in a case of such urgency (which almost involves the success of the whole enterprise) I thought that you will not be shy. Indeed, considering his gallant adoption of Maddock on your recommendation, I fancy you are bound to make him aware beforehand—that is, in good time before Monday next—of the state of the case. He may have got the Archbishop's assent to Maddock: and if he should begin on Monday by reporting that fact to the Committee, all will be right.

At any rate, too, my impression is, that when the awkwardness towards the Bishop of Norwich, and Maddock, and yourself, of proposing any name along with Maddock's—that is, of turning Maddock into a candidate without his consent, when he has been Bishop elect so far as the Association is concerned—shall be explained to those who think of another name, they will at once abandon the idea.

If I am not right as to the facts, let us meet. I will go to Town on purpose, if you do not do duty at Gratton on Sunday.