garian and the "true-born Englishman," both of mixed descent, are kindred in soul, if not in blood. And however our government may, wisely or unwisely, have stood aloof, through the best hearts of England a thrill of fraternal sympathy with the Hungarian patriots has shot, the electric force of which, fusing and harmonizing them into one, will not have been expended in the mere sentiment of the moment, but will be felt in the struggle yet to come. For we agree with this eloquent and illfated lady, that though "the victory of reaction appears complete throughout Europe, the appearance is fallacious. Despotism has fallen. back by accident into the place from which the earthquake had moved it for an instant; but the connections of its parts are shaken; it is loose, and rests but on the surface; the second heave will shake it into a heap of ruins."

Throughout Italy, Prussia, Austria, all Germany, nay in Russia itself, the materials for this more terrific shock, even than that of 1848, exist. They are only awaiting till the fuse which ignited that mine shall have burned on to the great magazine,-destined, unless precautions are taken in time, to shake all the despotisms of the continent. Even Nicholas, "whilst he lays additional burdens upon his scattered subjects to furnish fleets for the Baltic, the Euxine, and the Mediterranean, is troubled on every side by the growth of enlightened opinion."

"And the true children of my country," says our ill fated authoress in conclusion, "where are they? What nameless sufferings do they endure, because they were faithful to the last?

"Our sun rose brightly; it sank in storms and blackness; yet it was but one day in the cycle of time. That sun shall rise again, though we are forgotten; and, in the consolation of this hope, I cease from complaining, and at length lay down my pen."

To "Time the Avenger" we leave the character of the authoress of this book. He will show that her persecutors have deeply earned the exile's curse. May that curse be forgiveness!

ADVICE TO LOVERS.

LOVERS, who would your flame declare,
Trust to the language of the eyes;
Truth ever is imprinted there,

And the tongue's eloquence supplies.

No clever, well-turned phrases seek,
List to the heart, and not the head;
Let the true heart its own words speak,
And such will ever be well said.

Excess in words should caution raise :

From chosen language true love shrinks;
And he who thinks of what he says,
Says very rarely what he thinks.

M. A. B.

ENGLISH ADMINISTRATIONS FROM 1815 TO 1830.

THIS Miscellany never has been, and never is to be, political. Were we to devise an inscription for its imaginary portals, the Bentlesque warning to readers should be Dantesque in style :

"Leave all your politics on entering here."

But while thus we escape all the fogs and storms of party prejudice and strife, and, like Lucretius, introduce our friends to sunny regions, so that each of our numbers, like that poet's Olympus,

"Largè diffuso lumine ridet;

we can give occasionally an impartial glance at the literary labours of those, who both fight and chronicle the battles of the contending parties in the State.

an

Mr. Roebuck's volumes are certainly among the most remarkable that have appeared for some time past; though first class historical books have lately been unusually abundant. The subject is in itself important; and it possesses peculiar interest at the present moment. The author is well known to be a man who thinks what he speaks, and who is pretty sure to express his thoughts in trenchant and uncompromising phrases. Byron classed among the virtues of Mitford as historian, his wrath and partiality; and stated that he called these qualities virtues in a writer, because they make him write in earnest.† Byron was right. Earnestness is the great charm in both writers and speakers. No brilliancy or skill can make up for the absence of it; and where it is present it can cover a multitude of defects. This was the real secret of the marvellous ascendancy which Robespierre acquired. Mirabeau discerned this, and said of the destined Dictator of Terror, when many ridiculed his first speeches, "This man will do something; for he believes every word he says." Now, itis impossible to read any one of Mr. Roebuck's chapters without precisely the equivalent reflection arising, "This man believes every word he writes." He is not tampering with our intellects. He is no mere literary gladiator; but a devoted champion, who strives with might and main, and smites without sparing in behalf of what is to him the True Faith. Many may deem him Quixotic; many may think that, blinded by passion, he deals his blows in quarters where he should have rendered homage: but assuredly none will turn away from him as either faint-hearted or insincere.

Indeed, whatever may be a man's politics, this book of the Member for Sheffield will rivet his attention. Perhaps some members of some of the great Whig houses may feel as little relish in reading the caustic sentences of Mr. Roebuck, as the Metelli felt in reading the sarcastic Saturnians of Nævius. But in general, both Reformers and AntiReformers will be glad of this History of the birth, struggles, and final success of the memorable Reform Bill of 1832. The first will welcome in it a vigorous and lucid narrative of their great triumph. The others

History of the Whig Ministry of 1830 to the passing of the Reform Bill. By John Arthur Roebuck, M.P.

+ See note to xiith canto of Don Juan.

ENGLISH ADMINISTRATIONS FROM 1815 TO 1830. 321

will appreciate it on the principle, that makes every sensible man desire to know his adversary's view of a question as well as his own. And it is a book that can mislead nobody. The author never disguises his own thorough-going partizanship. He puts his readers fairly on their guard, and, if he conquers their judgment, he conquers it fairly. He filches no converts by affected candour or specious indifferentism. He is not only too honourable, but he is far too confident of the superiority of his cause, to seek to gain dishonest advantages by the suppression of facts, or by the garbling of testimony.

There are some good observations in Mr. Roebuck's Preface, respecting the possibility of the history of any great event being well written by a contemporary. He says,

"Some may deem my attempt premature, because of the passions and prejudices which must of necessity affect a cotemporary-and because also of the difficulty he must encounter when endeavouring to learn the secret history connected with the events he describes. I admit the premises of this argument, but I deny the conclusion thus drawn from them.

"Of the passions and prejudices which affect the cotemporary historian, only a small portion belong to him exclusively. He may, indeed, when speaking of individuals, be influenced by personal antipathies or predilections, but the bias that results from peculiar political opinions-from peculiar views of philosophy and morals, is an infirmity besetting men of every age and country; and we consequently find in our own days as much warmth, ay, as much acrimony evinced, in discussions on the parties of ancient Athens, as on those of modern England. The language employed with respect to Mr. O'Connell is not more bitter than that often used towards Cleon, and the passing of the Reform Bill is a subject not one whit more exciting, not at all more likely to disturb the judgment of an historian, than the conduct of the Long Parliament, or the National Convention.

"To enable posterity to write the history of any period, cotemporary evidence is needed-and that evidence cannot well be deemed complete, unless it have been subjected to cotemporary cross-examination. Now, a cotemporary historian is a witness as well as an historian-a witness, indeed, giving his testimony under the most efficient securities for its accuracy; liability to instant denial and searching cross-examination. If his political views and the acts of his public life are well known, his evidence will be the more strictly scrutinized, and received with that caution and allowance which a known partiality requires. His opinions will be judged after the same fashion, and be the less likely to mislead, because they come from one whose preconceived political views have been long openly avowed and thoroughly well known.

"It must, however, be admitted, that if a cotemporary possess some special knowledge and peculiar means of information, he is nevertheless shut out from an acquaintance of many facts, or precluded from the open use of evidence, which may be freely communicated when all the actors in the scenes described shall have passed away. Every cotemporary history, therefore, must even as evidence be in some degree incomplete. The publication, nevertheless, of a narrative thus necessarily imperfect must, if it excite discussion, criticism, and reply, contribute to bring out the truth, and put it upon record. Many an assertion that has slept for a century in an unpublished memoir, and passed current when

VOL. XXXI.

A A

at length made public, would have met with instant contradiction and refutation had it been openly hazarded during the lifetime of the writer.

"The testimony of living witnesses, tried and sifted by persons immediately interested in the matter to which their testimony relates, is far more valuable than ex parte assertions, no matter how authoritative or circumstantial.

"No one, however, who has not attempted such a task as that which I have essayed, can well appreciate the difficulties which belong to it. These difficulties, however, would not be lessened by time. That which is now difficult, would, in a few years, become impossible.

"In every great political crisis, much that is of importance-much that we should desire to know, is not recorded in writing; or, if recorded, the record is often unwittingly-not seldom intentionally-destroyed. In such cases, we must trust to oral testimony, which every year becomes more scanty and faulty, and which, if not seized at once, will quickly be lost for ever. For an accurate estimation of the character of public men, these unrecorded events are often of the highest importance; and as, to enable us to form a just appreciation of the conduct of those who have taken part in the government of mankind, is one of the great purposes for which history is written, it is almost impossible to overrate the value of any process, by which such fleeting evidence is rendered permanent, trustworthy, and available. To make it trustworthy is, indeed, the most difficult portion of the task. Passion not only distorts the judgment, but also misleads the memory; and I have often found half a dozen narrators of the same events, all honestly intending to tell an accurate story, but all, nevertheless, giving very different--and often very contradictory-descriptions of the same transactions. In this conflict of testimony, the only chance of attaining truth is by means of comparison and mutual explanation. While the witnesses are alive this may be accomplished; death, however, renders all such friendly cross-examination utterly impossible; and, where the actors are few, and the events important, the need of an immediate cotemporary record increases; the difficulty, however, of making it, increases with the necessity."

There are valuable truths expressed here; valuable not only with reference to this particular work, but as general literary canons. We have cited the passage in extenso, because it shows Mr. Roebuck to possess comprehensiveness and reflection, as well as the acuteness and energy, for which all give him credit, and which every chapter of his history abundantly displays. He commences his work with a general view of affairs, from the end of the great wars with France in 1815, to the close of Lord Liverpool's administration. Then come two spirited chapters on the ministries of Canning and Lord Goderich, and on the carrying of the Catholic Emancipation Bill by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel in 1829. The author then comes to his immediate subject, the national movement for Parliamentary Reform in 1830,the downfall of the Wellington administration, the formation of the Whig Ministry of Earl Grey,-the unsuccessful first reform of 1831,its equally unsuccessful successor, and the ultimate carrying of the third Bill, on the 7th of June, 1832, amid the fiercest scenes of excitement that this country ever witnessed since the great civil war of the 17th century. The vehemence of Mr. Roebuck's party opinions, and

the "savissima indignatio" which he showers on all whom he deems either the foes or the lukewarm friends of the Liberal cause, make it almost impossible to transfer any of the most brilliant and powerful passages of his work to the pages of a non-political periodical. But there are some remarks on the Duke of Wellington that breathe the true English spirit, in which all Englishmen, whatever be their political bias, ever ought to speak of that great man. Mr. Roebuck evidently feels that the Duke of Wellington's character is national property, and falls not under the narrow tutelage of any party. When describing the Duke's accession to office in 1828, he says,

6

"So soon as the Duke of Wellington was appointed prime minister, many objections were vehemently urged against what the objectors termed the unconstitutional nature of the appointment. What this meant none of them very accurately described-though the common explanation was, that the Duke being a soldier ought not to be prime minister because of the danger of the thing. A soldier also was supposed not to be skilled in civil affairs. The Duke's experience,' said Mr. Brougham, has been purely military, not civil.' And though I entertain the highest opinion of the noble Duke's military genius, still I do not like to see him at the head of the finance of the country, enjoying the patronage of the crown-enjoying, as he does enjoy, the full and perfect confidence of his sovereign-enjoying the patronage of the army-enjoying the patronage of the church-and, in fact, enjoying almost all the patronage of the state.' This language was natural in the existing state of men's opinions and experience. Since the days of Marlborough no soldier had swayed the councils of this country, and the Duke of Wellington had himself, a few months before, sanctioned the general opinion as to the incapacity of a soldier to rule over the civil affairs of the state. Yet there is no rational foundation for any such belief. No man can be a great soldier unless he possess great administrative talent, and this talent is more likely to be brought forth, and fostered by the business of war, than by the management of cases at Nisi Prius; yet because of his habit of speaking, the lawyer is deemed capable of governing, while the soldier whose life is spent in action and not in talk, is considered unversed in what are called the civil affairs of state. The training of the Duke of Wellington was, however, of a much higher character than any which ordinary statesmen, or soldiers, or lawyers, can hope to enjoy. In India, and in Spain and Portugal, he led armies and he governed nations. To feed his armies, and to keep the people for whom he was nominally engaged, obedient and favourable to his cause, he was obliged to bring into action all those great qualities of mind which are needed for the practical government of mankind. Every intricate question of finance, the various and perplexing operations of trade, the effects of every institution, commercial, political, of law and administration,-all had to be understood, weighed, watched, and applied, while he led the armies of England, and in fact governed the people of Spain and Portugal. The vast combinations needed for his great campaigns, made him familiar with every operation of government; and the peculiar relation in which he stood to the people of Spain and Portugal, and their various rulers, called into action every faculty of his mind, and made him profoundly skilled in the difficult art of leading and controlling men of all classes and of all characters."