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

anything like it in any readable English history. His impartiality, a quality so essential to the historian, in his account of the different religious sects and political parties, is very conspicuous. The Church of Rome and the Church of England, Presbyterians, Independents, and Quakers, are brought in review before him, and their errors and faults exposed with a bold and unsparing hand. We think he endeavors to preserve the same impartiality between the Cavaliers and Roundheads, and the Whigs and Tories. But we imagine that the zealous partisans of all the religious sects will be dissatisfied with his account of their conduct and principles, and that no political party will be entirely satisfied, unless it be the moderate, aristocratic Whigs.

If we were to object at all to his views of parties and sects, it would be that he may not have done full justice to the religious or political principles of the Independents, the only sect of that day that seems to have had any just notions of religious freedom or toleration. It was the Independents alone who prevented the Presbyterians, at the termination of the Civil War, from establishing a system of religious intolerance and persecution as odious as that from which they had just been delivered. Cromwell, Vane, Selden, and Milton were for liberty of conscience and toleration in religious worship. The Presbyterians wished to succeed the ecclesiastical tyrants whom the joint arms of the Independents and Presbyterians had recently overthrown. Milton had just reason to complain that

"New Presbyter is but old

Priest writ large."

The first three chapters, including the greater part of the first volume, are introductory, intended to prepare the reader for beginning the history with the reign of James II. The first chapter contains a rapid sketch of English history from the earliest times to the Restoration, or accession of Charles II. He dwells a little more at length on the contest between Charles and the parliament, the Civil War, the administration of Cromwell, and the Restoration.

The second chapter is devoted to the reign of Charles II, a knowledge of which is indispensable to a good understanding of the reign of James, and of the revolution which hurled the Stuarts from the throne of England, and condemned them to perpetual exile.

The third chapter contains a description at length of the times when the crown passed from Charles II to James, and a comparison between that and its present condition. It contains a view of the very great advance which has been made in almost all the particulars thought most desirable in national prosperity and the well-being of individuals, including a high degree of physical, moral, and intellectual improvement.

This description has been mentioned as being out of place in a history, but we think it the most important as well as entertaining in the whole work, the one we should be most unwilling to spare. Voltaire justly complains that "the history of Europe in his time was grown to an endless register of marriages, genealogies, and disputed titles, which render the narrative obscure and unentertaining, at the same time that they stifle the memory of great events, together with the knowledge of laws and manners, objects more worthy

of attention." Whatever may be the defects of his historical productions, Voltaire has the great merit of leading the way in the attention now commonly paid by historical writers to laws, manners, and customs, to the progress of the liberal and useful arts, and especially to the condition of the people. The attention of the reader is no longer exclusively directed to kings and princes, ministers, ambassadors, and generals, as if all he rest of the world were of no consequence to the historian or reader.

Mr. Macaulay has on the whole, we think, been very successful in this account, and has given a very picturesque description of the condition of England one hundred and sixty years ago, and a very favorable one of England at present. We are not disposed to call in question the general fidelity of these pictures, but we think the former is somewhat overcharged, and the latter may, perhaps, be deemed a little flattering. Indeed, we think it must be apparent to most readers, that some exaggeration in description is not very uncommon with Macaulay. We do not mention this as detracting from the general merit of the work, and if there is occasionally any exaggeration in his descriptions, or error in his conclusions, we think that the author, by a full and accurate statement of all the facts that can be ascertained, generally affords the intelligent reader the means of forming a correct opinion for himself. Some traces are occasionally visible of the rhetorician and of the eloquent debater in the House of Commons; sometimes he discusses questions in the style of an advocate for one party, but in these the decision is commonly that of the calm and impartial historian.

The following is the character of Cranmer, the