We must say something of its faults of matter and of form. The division into chapters, it seems to us, is not uniformly well made; sometimes this division disturbs the unity of the subject. He gives us too little of the philosophical part of history; too little, perhaps, of the ornamental. He lacks the picturesqueness of style which makes history so attractive. in some authors. He does not give the student his authorities in the margin, as it seems to us he ought to do. His dates are not always to be relied upon. We notice some errors, the results of haste, which we trust he will correct in a second edition. Thus, he says that Locke maintained that men's souls, "mortal by generation, are made immortal by Christ's purchase." It is well known that this was the opinion of Dodwell, who makes baptism a condition sine quâ non of immortality, but we have never found the doctrine in Locke,

In Volume II. he omits some important particulars. The provincial troops, who comprised the entire land forces, were deprived of all share of the prize money, which amounted to one million pounds. The land forces were entitled to the greater part of it but got none; the expense of these forces remained a long time a heavy burden on the colonies, and especially on Massachusetts. Commodore Warren and the naval forces kept the whole of the prize money, which was contrary to all law, usage, and equity.

He calls Lord Grenville "Bute's chancellor of the exchequer." George Grenville was chancellor of the exchequer, but was never a lord. Bute was never in the ministry. George Grenville was not of the party called "king's friends," as Mr. Hildreth intimates.

Dean Tucker is called "author of the Light of Na

ture," which was written by a country gentleman rejoicing in the name of Abraham Tucker, with a literary alias, Edward Search.

"The private sentiments of Lord North were not materially different from those of Chatham." They differed in almost every material point,— as to the right of taxation, and the expediency of asserting it by force.

The bridge spoken of was in Salem, not between Salem and Danvers; it was not a company of militia under Colonel Pickering, but a party of citizens.*

66

The praise of Arnold appears excessive. He was hardly one of the most honored [officers] in the American army." He was distinguished for courage more than conduct, and not at all for integrity.

He speaks of an intercepted letter, which "seemed to imply a settled policy, on the part of France, to exclude the Americans from the fisheries and the Western lands." Mr. Sparks, in his Life of Franklin, has successfully vindicated the French court from the charge of ill faith in these negotiations.†

He relies on John Adams' letter to Cushing as authority for an odious sentiment ascribed to Mr. Adams. This letter was a forgery, and was so pronounced by Mr. Adams himself, in a letter written at the close of his administration, dated the 4th of March, 1801, and published extensively in the newspapers of that period. It is in the Columbian Centinel.

These are slight blemishes, which may easily be corrected in a new edition. On the whole, this history must be regarded as a work of much value and importance. It is written in the American spirit, in a

*Vol. 3, p. 66

† Ibid, p. 418.

style always brief but always clear, without a single idle word. We look with high expectations for the volume which will bring the history down to our own times.

VII

MACAULAY'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND

Perhaps there is no period in the annals of mankind of more interest to Englishmen and Americans than the one comprised in the plan of Macaulay's history, from the accession of James II till near the present time, and certainly no one standing in so much need of a good historian. We know of no good history of England for the last one hundred and sixty years, since the termination of Hume's. When it was understood that Macaulay had undertaken his work, it was a subject of general congratulation. All were pleased that so important and difficult a work had fallen to the lot of perhaps the only man of the age who was supposed to have the learning and genius required for the task.

Mr. Macaulay is well known as the most popular and able reviewer of the present or perhaps of any past time. Many of his articles in the Edinburgh Review are of permanent value, and have been republished here in a separate work. There may be articles in that Review that display more profound and exact knowledge in some departments, but there are none so eagerly sought for, none that combine so much varied and extensive information on subjects of general interest, presented in so popular and captivating a style.

It is rare that any man combines so many essential qualifications and so many accidental advantages for writing a history of England. In addition to great

learning and talent as an author, he is eminently a practical man, well acquainted with the world and its affairs. His public life for many years as a member of Parliament and a part of the time one of the Ministry and of the Cabinet, has made him intimately acquainted wth politicians and statesmen, and given him an opportunity of knowing from his own experience how the business of government is carried on. We believe, too, that he had the reputation of being one of the best speakers in the House of Commons, and combines the powers of speaking well and writing well, so rarely found united since the days of Cicero.

This work is more entertaining, and contains more of what we wish to know, than any other history of the times; though it appears to us that the author is sometimes liable to the charge of prolixity, and dwells too long in illustrating a proposition and in narration and description. The characters of eminent men are delineated with great skill and much life, but are sometimes drawn out to an immoderate length. He seems desirous to give a view so full and complete of every part of his subject, as not only to prevent the possibility of being misunderstood, but also to save the reader all the trouble of thinking or making any conclusion for himself. Nothing can be more opposite to the manner of Tacitus, though they agree in one respect, in fondness for point and antithesis.

His style is clear and pointed, as well as beautiful and brilliant. Perhaps the splendor is not always genuine, and sometimes, contrary to the rhetorical maxim, resembles that of tinsel rather than the brightness of polished steel.

The extent and minuteness of his knowledge of facts are indeed wonderful, and we know not where to find