promise
to render me useful. For years I scarcely did anything at home or
abroad without the inquiry being uppermost in my mind whether I
could be better employed for general benefit."

He was equally uncompromising in his friendships. His feelings towards
his friends were always ruled by his sense of justice. He was the first
to come forward with substantial help in their hour of need, but he was
also the first to tell them the truth, even though it might be
unpleasant, when he thought it his duty to do so. His unselfishness is
shown in his conduct during the famous state trials, in which Holcroft,
his most intimate friend, Horne Tooke, and several other highly prized
acquaintances, were accused of high treason. His boldly avowed
revolutionary principles made him a marked man, but he did all that was
in his power to defend them. He expressed in the columns of the "Morning
Chronicle" his unqualified opinion of the atrocity of the proceedings
against them; and throughout the trials he stood by the side of the
prisoners, though by so doing he ran the risk of being arrested with
them. But if his friends asked his assistance when it did not seem to him
that they deserved it, he was as fearless in withholding it. A Jew
money-lender, John King by name, at whose house he dined frequently, was
arrested on some charge connected with his business. He appealed to
Godwin to appear in court and give evidence in his favor; whereupon the
latter wrote to him, not only declining, but forcibly explaining that he
declined because he could not conscientiously attest to his, the Jew's,
moral character. There was no ill-will on his part, and he continued to
dine amicably with King. Engrossed as he was with his own work, he could
still find time to read a manuscript for Mrs. Inchbald, or a play for
Holcroft, but when he did so, he was very plain-spoken in pointing out
their faults. He incurred the former's displeasure by correcting some
grammatical errors in a story she had submitted to him, and he deeply
wounded the latter by his unmerciful abuse of the "Lawyer." "You come
with a sledge-hammer of criticism," Holcroft said to him on this
occasion, "describe it [the play] as absolutely contemptible, tell me it
must be damned, or, if it should escape, that it cannot survive five
nights." Yet his affection for Holcroft was unwavering. The conflicting
results to which his honesty sometimes led are strikingly set forth in
his relati