tunately is possible with the help of three works of recent publication, Sir John Strachey's account of the Rohilla War, Sir James Stephen's examination of the Nand Kumár myth and the impeachment of Impey, and the selections from Official Records so ably edited by Professor Forrest. From the two former works I have made copious extracts, and I wish that every student had the opportunity and the leisure to study them in their entirety. Another work which I have found most useful is Sir Alfred Lyall's Warren Hastings. This, if possible, should be closely compared with Macaulay's essay. It is not long,--about two hundred pages, but it gives with unusual clearness a complete view of Hastings' administration. It has another characteristic, even more important than clearness, viz., impartiality. I do not say "studied impartiality," for the impartiality strikes one as something so natural as to be part of the man. Captain Trotter's biography in the "Rulers of India" series will also be read with much interest. If somewhat of the nature of a brief for the defence, and scarcely displaying the same breadth of treatment with Sir Alfred Lyall's work, it is fuller in detail and is based on the firm foundation of the original records which, as I have already mentioned, Professor Forrest has lately edited. Lastly, an admirable article in the Dictionary of National Biography, from the pen of Mr. H. G. Keene, brings into very moderate compass the events of Warren Hastings' life and official

career.

In my Notes there will be found, I hope, sufficient explanation of verbal difficulties and historical refer

ences. But certain matters are too long for mere Notes, and these I have reserved for Appendices. The subjects there discussed are (1) The Rohilla War: (2) Hastings, Impey, and Nand Kumár: (3) The Impeachment of Impey; and to these I have added a short sketch of the Rise and Growth of the Marátha powers.

WARREN HASTINGS.

THIS book seems to have been manufactured in pursuance of a contract, by which the representatives of Warren Hastings, on the one part, bound themselves to furnish papers, and Mr. Gleig, on the other part, bound himself to furnish praise. It is but just to say that the covenants on both sides have been most faithfully kept; and the result is before us in the form of three big bad volumes, full of undigested correspondence and undiscerning panegyric.

If it were worth while to examine this performance in detail, we could easily make a long article by merely pointing 10 out inaccurate statements, inelegant expressions, and immoral doctrines. But it would be idle to waste criticism on a bookmaker; and, whatever credit Mr. Gleig may have justly earned by former works, it is as a bookmaker, and nothing more, that he now comes before us. More eminent men than Mr. Gleig have written nearly as ill as he, when they have stooped to similar drudgery. It would be unjust to estimate Goldsmith by the History of Greece, or Scott by the Life of Napoleon. Mr. Gleig is neither a Goldsmith nor a Scott; but it would be unjust to deny that he is capable 20 of something better than these Memoirs. It would also, we hope and believe, be unjust to charge any Christian minister with the guilt of deliberately maintaining some propositions which we find in this book. It is not too much to say that Mr. Gleig has written several passages, which bear the same

relation to the Prince of Machiavelli that the Prince or Machiavelli bears to the Whole Duty of Man, and which would excite amazement in a den of robbers, or on board of a schooner of pirates. But we are willing to attribute these offences to haste, to thoughtlessness, and to that disease of the understanding which may be called the Furor Biographicus, and which is to writers of lives what the goître is to an Alpine shepherd, or dirt-eating to a Negro slave.

We are inclined to think that we shall best meet the 10 wishes of our readers, if, instead of dwelling on the faults of this book, we attempt to give, in a way necessarily hasty and imperfect, our own view of the life and character of Mr. Hastings. Our feeling towards him is not exactly that of the House of Commons which impeached him in 1787; neither is it that of the House of Commons which uncovered and stood up to receive him in 1813. He had great qualities, and he rendered great services to the state. But to repre

sent him as a man of stainless virtue is to make him ridiculous; and from regard for his memory, if from no 20 other feeling, his friends would have done well to lend no countenance to such puerile adulation. We believe that, if he were now living, he would have sufficient judgment and sufficient greatness of mind to wish to be shown as he was. He must have known that there were dark spots on his fame. He might also have felt with pride that the splendour of his fame would bear many spots. He would have preferred, we are confident, even the severity of Mr. Mill to the puffing of Mr Gleig. He would have wished posterity to have a likeness of him, though an unfavourable likeness, 30 rather than a daub at once insipid and unnatural, resembling neither him nor any body else. "Paint me as I am," said Oliver Cromwell, while sitting to young Lely. “If you leave out the scars and wrinkles, I will not pay you a shilling." Even in such a trifle, the great Protector showed both his good sense and his magnanimity. He did not wish all that was characteristic in his countenance to be lost, in

the vain attempt to give him the regular features and smooth blooming cheeks of the curl-pated minions of James the First. He was content that his face should go forth marked with all the blemishes which had been put on it by time, by war, by sleepless nights, by anxiety, perhaps by remorse; but with valour, policy, authority, and public care written in all its princely lines. If men truly great knew their own interest, it is thus that they would wish their minds to be portrayed.

race.

Warren Hastings sprang from an ancient and illustrious 10 It has been affirmed that his pedigree can be traced back to the great Danish sea-king, whose sails were long the terror of both coasts of the British Channel, and who, after many fierce and doubtful struggles, yielded at last to the valour and genius of Alfred. But the undoubted splendour of the line of Hastings needs no illustration from fable. One branch of that line wore, in the fourteenth century, the coronet of Pembroke. From another branch sprang the renowned Chamberlain, the faithful adherent of the White Rose, whose fate has furnished so striking a theme both to 20 poets and to historians. His family received from the Tudors the earldom of Huntingdon, which, after long dispossession, was regained in our time by a series of events scarcely paralleled in romance.

The lords of the manor of Daylesford, in Worcestershire, claimed to be considered as the heads of this distinguished family. The main stock, indeed, prospered less than some of the younger shoots. But the Daylesford family, though not ennobled, was wealthy and highly considered, till, about two hundred years ago, it was overwhelmed by the great 30 ruin of the civil war. The Hastings of that time was a zealous cavalier. He raised money on his lands, sent his plate to the mint at Oxford, joined the royal army, and, after spending half his property in the cause of King Charles, was glad to ransom himself by making over most of the remaining half to Speaker Lenthal. The old seat at