the triumph of the popular cause, if Cæsar, in putting himself at its head, had not given it a new glory and an irresistible force. A party, like an army, can only conquer with a chief worthy to command it; and all those who, since the Gracchi, had unfurled the standard of reform, had sullied it with blood, and compromised it by revolts. Cæsar raised and purified it. To constitute his party, it is true, he had recourse to agents but little estimated; the best architect can build only with the materials under his hand; but his constant endeavor was to associate to himself the most trustworthy men, and he spared no effort to gain by turns Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Servilius Cæpio, Q. Fufius Calenus, Serv. Sulpicius, and many others.

"In moments of transition, when the old system is at an end, and the new not yet established, the greatest difficulty consists, not in overcoming the obstacles which are in the way of the advent of a regime demanded by the country, but to establish the latter solidly, by establishing it upon the concurrence of honora. ble men penetrated with the new ideas, and steady in their principles."

Again, on page 379, discussing Cicero's mistake in inflicting capital punishment on some of the conspirators, he condemns Cicero, but adds the following, as if to justify the violence which attended his own accession to power:

"Laws may be justly broken when society is hurrying on to its own ruin, and a desperate remedy is indispensable for its salvation; and again, when the gov ernment, supported by the mass of the people, becomes the organ of its interests and their hopes. But when, on the contrary, a nation is divided into factions, and the government represents only one of them, its duty, if it intends to foil a plot, is to bind itself to the most scrupulous respect for the law; for at such a juncture every measure not sanctioned by the letter of the law appears to be due rather to a selfish feeling of interest than to a desire for the general weal; and the majority of the public, indifferent or hostile, is always disposed to pity the accused, whoever he may be, and to blame the severity with which he was put down."

But we will not anticipate our readers either by further extracts or opinions.

ARTICLE IX.-DEFENSE OF THE LATE PROFESSOR KINGSLEY FROM THE ATTACKS OF PRESIDENT SEARS.

Celebration of the One Hundredth Anniversary of the Founding of Brown University, Sept. 6th, 1864. 8vo. pp. 178.

THE late Professor Kingsley left behind him a high reputation for diligence in investigating historical questions, candor and impartiality in weighing evidence on doubtful points, caution and correctness in stating his conclusions, united with great gentleness and catholicity of spirit. We were told by some who heard this address delivered by President Sears at the Centennial celebration of Brown University in 1864, and the story was repeated with variations in the newspapers of the day, that one of the principal features of the address was a pointed attack on the reputation of Professor Kingsley as a historian, not disconnected with imputations of bigotry and sectarianism, alike disgraceful to their author, unsuited to the occasion, and unjust to the memory of the deceased.

We have looked with interest for the publication of this address, that we might see how far the performance coincided with the promise. We learn from the preface that further investigations and inquiries have led President Sears to withdraw all charges of a personal nature, and to modify the criticisms so hastily made. We cannot forbear remarking that it would have been more in accordance with the character of a true historian and critic to have investigated the facts in the first instance, that there might have been no need of retraction or apology.

We have no disposition to remark further on the address as delivered, but we propose to offer some criticisms on the address as it is published after a "sober second thought" on the part of President Sears.

He says, with singular naiveté, "From his [Prof. Kingsley's] account of the origin of Brown University, it will be

sufficient for our purpose to select the following passages," and then after quoting four detached sentences, he adds, “tot verba, tot errores," which may be literally translated, "every word is untrue."

Sweeping assertions of this sort have little weight, unless sustained by proof. It would have been better for the purposes of truth, if the statements of Professor Kingsley had been fully quoted, that all might judge of the fairness of the attack and the justice of the criticism. Before examining the arguments brought forward by President Sears, we will consider what Professor Kingsley did state, and then inquire how far his statements are invalidated by anything which President Sears opposes to them.

About twenty years ago Professor Kingsley wrote for Sparks' American Biography, a life of Dr. Ezra Stiles, the distinguished President of Yale College from 1777 to 1795, which, like all the published productions of its author, was as concise as the nature of the case admitted, and touched upon nothing which was not germane to the subject. In treating of that portion of the life of President Stiles which was spent in Newport, Rhode Island, as pastor of a Congregational church in that place, he spoke of the interest which Dr. Stiles took in the subject of collegiate education, of the plans he formed and in part carried out, and of the share he had in the establishment of Brown University, stating that some years earlier he set about devising a plan for uniting several denominations of Christians in the enterprise of establishing a college in Rhode Island, and of procuring funds for carrying the plan into execution. "What part of the scheme, so far as perfected, was his, is not known. It is, however, probable that it was the result of consultation among those who looked upon the founding of another college in New England as desirable. That Mr. Stiles was chiefly employed in the collection of facts on which all proceedings in an affair of such importance were to rest, there is no doubt." Professor Kingsley then went on to speak more particularly of the desire which Dr. Stiles had to unite the non-episcopal churches in the establishment of a college, of the statistics he collected in reference to this plan,

and of his anticipations that the "Baptists would be doubly engaged to promote a college in which they have so great an influence as in the proposed one of Rhode Island." Dr. Stiles thought that "the Presbyterians and Congregationalists might contribute four or five times as much as the Baptists and the greatest number of students." "Accordingly a committee of Baptists and Congregationalists was appointed to draft a charter of a college; and of this body Mr. Stiles and Mr. William Ellery were designated to prepare such an instrument for their consideration."*

It is especially to be observed that it was no part of Professor Kingsley's plan in this sketch of the life of Dr. Stiles, to give a history of Brown University or of all the steps which were taken in regard to its foundation. He confined himself exclusively to the part which Dr. Stiles took, and for everything which he stated in reference to this, even President Sears now admits in his published pamphlet, what he did not know when he delivered his address, that Professor Kingsley had the authority of President Stiles himself, as written down in his manuscript diary preserved in the archives of Yale College.

Professor Kingsley did not claim for Dr. Stiles, as a partisan ignorant of all the facts might have done, the chief place among the originators of Brown University; he did not seek to detract from the merit of others, as a narrow-minded man might have done; but if all that is stated of President Stiles in this connection is in accordance with fact, there is still the largest liberty allowed to the friends of other parties to relate what they did for the same noble object. It is evident in reading Professor Kingsley's remarks, that he was sensible that the whole was not then known about the origin of Brown University, and of this there is proof in his correspondence of that time (which we have been permitted to see), which shows his earnest endeavor to learn the facts more fully and his deter

* President Stiles says: "A charter draughted by a committee of Baptists and Presbyterians, for a college in Rhode Island, was preferred to the Assembly, August, 1763, read and continued."

mination to state only that which could be fully substantiated and to be silent on every doubtful point. It is very creditable to his acuteness and caution that no fact is stated by him which is in the least degree invalidated by any discoveries of more recent years.

Professor Kingsley began his account of this part of the life of Dr. Stiles by saying "At what time, or by whom, the project of a college in Rhode Island was first started, is matter of doubt." President Sears admits that this, "if it stood by itself, would not be open to criticism." In order to make it so, he omits some sentences that follow, and connects it with what is said subsequently of Brown University. This is done on the principle of "selecting passages to suit his purpose." No one can read the whole passage and fail to see that Professor Kingsley is here speaking of plans anterior to the conception of Brown University. It is none the less true that, twenty years ago, it was "matter of doubt" at what time or by whom this particular college was first started; we may be pardoned for saying that the doubt has not been entirely removed by President Sears.

In contradiction of Professor Kingsley, or rather of President Stiles, from whose diary the facts are derived, President Sears claims that Dr. Stiles had nothing to do with originating Brown University; that the plan was matured in Philadelphia, and adopted in Newport, before Dr. Stiles knew of it; that neither he nor Mr. Ellery were members of the committee to draft a charter; that Dr. Stiles was only employed by the committee as a clerk; and that whatever schemes he may have had, or whatever statistics he may have collected, had nothing to do with it. He claims for the Baptists of Philadelphia, and for them alone, the credit of originating Brown University.

If it is true, as appears from the statements of Dr. Stiles, and as is not denied, he had himself been zealous in behalf of collegiate education in Rhode Island, and had endeavored to interest others in this object, it would be strange, upon any rule of probabilities, that a collegiate institution should be established in Rhode Island and Dr. Stiles have no part in it; and not even know of it until the plan was matured. With