for the period at which they flourished, appear to have been a tolerably grave, and wise, and religious race, but whose taste was by no means very good nor knowledge very extensive; who in their day made some noise in the world by their victories and conquests, of which very vague rumours and traditions survive; but who are at least as much known to posterity, as could be expected for the inhabitants of an island so remote from modern civilization and from the seat of empire, arts, and letters.

ART. VI.-History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. By Lord Mahon. Vol. II., 1837; Vol. III., 1838. 8vo. London.

IN

N the prosecution of his design Lord Mahon has more than justified the hopes excited by his first volume, which we noticed shortly after its appearance. He has shown throughout excellent skill in combining, as well as contrasting, the various elements of interest which his materials afforded; he has continued to draw his historical portraits with the same firm and easy hand; and no one can lay down the book without feeling that he has been under the guidance of a singularly clear, high-principled, and humane mind; one uniting a very searching shrewdness with a pure and unaffected charity. The author has shown equal courage, judgment, and taste in availing himself of minute details, so as to give his narrative the picturesqueness of a Memoir, without sacrificing one jot of the real dignity of History. That is a phrase, indeed, that has been brought into fashion by the Wests of literature; such persons were reminded in vain that botanists might gain instruction from the foregrounds of Raphael.

There is one point of Lord Mahon's management which we must object to: we mean his custom of drawing a man's character at full length, when he first introduces him. He does not follow this plan always, but in most cases, and certainly in the most important ones, he does so; and wherever he does we think the effect unfortunate. On reflection he will perhaps agree with us that it would have been better to let the idiosyncracy of the man who flourished a hundred years ago be gradually developed, in as far as it can be so, by the events of his career, and summed up at the close. When a historian treats of his own time, and has had opportunities of observing and studying the men in his own person, the other method has not a few things to recommend it. It then seems the more straightforward and manly course-and it is that of Thucydides, Xenophon, Sallust, Tacitus, and Claren

don.

don. In such cases we have before us a witness; when our historian is only a judge, the jury like better to hear the evidence led before the charge is delivered. It certainly appears to us that, in the great case of Walpole, Lord Mahon's readers would have gained very considerably had the deeply conceived and most elegantly executed character been reserved for the period of his exit. We may say the same of Chesterfield, and if we could be sure that Lord Mahon will carry on his work, we should say so both of Frederick the Great and of Chatham.

We have no wish at present to enter upon any of the vexata quæstiones connected with the party history of the two first Hanoverian reigns. Lord Mahon adheres in his third volume to the view of an early chapter, in which he maintained that Whig and Tory had counterchanged their leading principles since the æra at which his narrative commences; and we must still concur with him, though not to the full extent that he carries his proposition. So long as the House of Stuart retained any considerable influence, the Whigs were, par excellence, the Conservatives of Great Britain: the prime interests of their party were at stake with the new dynasty, and the dynasty was the pledge and symbol of the leading principles of the constitution. The Tories, on the contrary, were half of them Jacobites at heart-the other half compelled to modify their proceedings by deference towards those who received the law of political management from such weak and foolish, or false and reckless adventurers, as successively obtained the confidence of the unhappy exiles of legitimacy-or to speak more correctly, of Popery. In our own time we have seen, and unfortunately we continue to see, our Church and our State equally endangered by the combination of an aristocratic party, that owes all its power and greatness to the Reformation and the Revolution of 1688, with one that hardly disguises its hatred alike of Aristocracy and of Monarchy-both acting, as was long suspected, but is now almost proved, under the secret influence of Rome, and effectually (though perhaps blindly) co-operating with the most rancorous external enemies of England in a renewed struggle against Protestantism, with which principle the safety and honour of this nation are bound up and identified.

Lord Mahon's book, however, is well calculated to temper the political judgment. It is one great lesson of modesty, forbearance, and charity. Thoroughly convinced of the justice of the Revolution which displaced James II., and acquiescing in the hard necessity that proscribed his heirs, he is not ashamed to express sympathy and respect for the great body of their honest adherents, and admiration for the noble self-devotion with which many upheld their cause. Hitherto the history of the exiled House has

been

been in the hands of determined enemies, or bigoted friends, or (especially of late) of persons whose amiable sensibility, or poetical imagination, led them to dwell on the romantic and adventurous side of the case, losing sight too often of the solid and priceless blessings which England, and through England all Protestant Christendom had at stake. Lord Mahon has steered clear of all such errors. His free and candid delineation of the whole career of Charles Edward, enriched as it is with numberless new touches of most lively interest, derived from the Stuart Papers in her Majesty's possession, and also from other MSS. sourcesthis generous and touching picture forms the main feature in his third volume; and it alone would have been sufficient to establish the noble writer's reputation, at a pitch which few, very few, of his contemporaries in this department of literature, have as yet approached. Sir Walter Scott's History of Scotland stops, unfortunately, far short of this period; and the charming narrative of his Grandfather's Tales was, of course, executed in a very different manner from what he would have adopted in a work of graver pretensions. Since his death Mr. Robert Chambers, a bookseller and antiquary of Edinburgh, has put forth histories of the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, which embody a great many curious details, gleaned with exemplary diligence, and presented in a lively enough style: but these little books are totally deficient in calmness of spirit; and we must add that, in his love of minuteness, the author very frequently slips into offensive vulgarity. His Jacobitism seems that of a rampant highlander, and we doubt not, had he flourished at the proper time, he would have handled his claymore gallantly; nor are we at all suprised to hear that he enjoys considerable popularity among certain classes in Scotland; but we cannot anticipate that these historical performances will ever obtain a place in the English library. Lord Mahon has not overlooked them; and from the use he has made of their materials, Mr. Chambers, if he be desirous of improving his taste, may derive more benefit than from any elaborate dissection of his own pages.

We extract the following passage, as an excellent example of the Author's manner. The reader will, we fancy, agree with us, that it has gained considerably in ease since we first made acquaintance with it, and yet that it has gained very much in true nobleness of effect. The boldness with which the small, apparently quite trivial circumstances are thrown into immediate connexion with the expression of very serious opinions, and very energetic and even passionate sentiments-this is, we conceive, the great peculiar characteristic of Lord Mahon's historical style. Upon such an occasion, even Hume or Robertson (to say nothing of

Gibbon)

Gibbon) would have had recourse to foot-notes-which are certainly a very useful as well as convenient invention of the moderns, but as certainly will never be resorted to by a complete artist, for the purpose of telling anything that belongs essentially to the business of the text.

'Charles Edward Stuart is one of those characters that cannot be portrayed at a single sketch, but have so greatly altered, as to require a new delineation at different periods. View him in his later years, and we behold the ruins of intemperance-as wasted but not as venerable as those of time;-we find him in his anticipated age a besotted drunkard, a peevish husband, a tyrannical master,-his understanding debased, and his temper soured. But not such was the Charles Stuart of 1745. Not such was the gallant Prince full of youth, of hope, of courage, who, landing with seven men in the wilds of Moidart, "could rally a kingdom round his banner, and scatter his foes before him at Preston and at Falkirk. Not such was the gay and courtly host of Holyrood. Not such was he, whose endurance of fatigue and eagerness for battle shone pre-eminent, even amongst Highland chiefs; while fairer critics proclaimed him the most winning in conversation, the most graceful in the dance! Can we think lowly of one who could acquire sch unbounded popularity in so few months, and over so noble a nation as the Scots; who could so deeply stamp his image on their hearts that, even thirty or forty years after his departure, his name, as we are told, always awakened the most ardent praises from all who had known him, the most rugged hearts were seen to melt at his remembrance, and tears to steal down the furrowed cheeks of the veteran? Let us, then, without denying the faults of his character, or extenuating the degradation of his age, do justice to the lustre of his manhood.

The person of Charles-(I begin with this for the sake of female readers,) was tall and well-formed; his limbs athletic and active. He excelled in all manly exercises, and was inured to every kind of toil, especially long marches on foot, having applied himself to field sports in Italy, and become an excellent walker. His face was strikingly handsome, of a perfect oval and a fair complexion; his eyes light blue; his features high and noble. Contrary to the custom of the time, which prescribed perukes, his own fair hair usually fell in long ringlets on his neck. This goodly person was enhanced by his graceful manners; frequently condescending to the most familiar kindness, yet always shielded by a regal dignity, he had a peculiar talent to please and to persuade, and never failed to adapt his conversation to the taste or to the station of those whom he addressed. Yet he owed nothing to his education : it had been entrusted to Sir Thomas Sheridan, an Irish Roman Catholic, who has not escaped the suspicion of being in the pay of the British Government, and at their instigation betraying his duty as a teacher. I am bound to say that I have found no corroboration of so foul a charge. Sheridan appears to me to have lived and died a man of honour; but history can only acquit him of base perfidy by accusing him of gross neglect. He had certainly left his pupil uninstructed in

the

the most common elements of knowledge. Charles's letters, which I have seen amongst the Stuart Papers, are written in a large, rude, rambling hand like a school-boy's. In spelling they are still more deficient. With him "humour," for example, becomes UMER; the weapon he knew so well how to wield, is a SORD; and, even his own father's name appears under the alias of GEMS. Nor are these errors confined to a single language: who-to give another instance from his Frenchwould recognise a hunting-knife in COOTO DE CHAS? I can, therefore, readily believe that, as Dr. King assures us, he knew very little of the History or Constitution of England. But the letters of Charles, while they prove his want of education, no less clearly display his natural powers, great energy of character, and great warmth of heart. Writing confidentially, just before he sailed for Scotland, he says, "I made my devotions on Pentecost Day, recommending myself particularly to the Almighty on this occasion to guide and direct me, and to continue to me always the same sentiments, which are, rather to suffer any thing than fail in any of my duties." His young brother, Henry of York, is mentioned with the utmost tenderness; and, though on his return from Scotland he conceived that he had reason to complain of Henry's coldness and reserve, the fault is lightly touched upon, and Charles observes that, whatever may be his brother's want of kindness, it shall never diminish his own. To his father, his tone is both affectionate and dutiful: he frequently acknowledges his goodness; and, who at the outset of his great enterprise of 1745, he entreats a blessing from the Pope, surely, the sternest Romanist might forgive him for adding, that he shall think a blessing from his parent more precious and more holy still. As to his friends and partisans, Prince Charles has been often accused of not being sufficiently moved by their sufferings, or grateful for their services. Bred up amidst monks and bigots, who seemed far less afraid of his remaining excluded from power, than that on gaining he should use it liberally, he had been taught the highest notions of prerogative and hereditary right. From thence he might infer, that those who served him in Scotland did no more than their dutywere merely fulfilling a plain social obligation, and were not, therefore, entitled to any very especial praise and admiration. Yet, on the other hand, we must remember how prone are all exiles to exaggerate their own desert, to think no rewards sufficient for it, and to complain of neglect, even where none really exists; and moreover that, in point of fact, many passages from Charles's most familiar correspondence might be adduced to show a watchful and affectionate care for his adherents. As a very young man, he determined that he would sooner submit to personal privation than embarrass his friends by contracting debts. On returning from Scotland he told the French minister, d'Argenson, Оп that he would never ask any thing for himself, but was ready to go down on his knees to obtain favours for his brother exiles. Once, affof lamenting some divisions and misconduct amongst his servants, he clares that, nevertheless, an honest man is so highly to be pri say "unless your Majesty orders me, I should part with them ndon, the heart." Nay, more, as it appears to me, this warm fessession of the

government.