re-elected, in his absence, for the city which five years before had rejected him. He did not, however, again give up his time exclusively to politics, and in 1856 he retired finally from public life, and was made a peer by Lord Palmerston soon after. Four volumes out of five of his 'History' were published before his death, and were received with great applause. He died on December 28, 1859, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. 'We have lost,' wrote his sister, Lady Trevelyan, 'the light of our home; the most tender, loving, generous, unselfish, devoted of friends. What he was to me for fifty years, how can I tell? What a world of love he poured out upon me and mine!'

In personal appearance Macaulay is described as short and robust, and fair-complexioned; his head was massive, and his countenance rugged; he was careless as to dress, and not distinctly handsome, but he had an expression indicative of combined power and good-nature.

One very remarkable feature in Macaulay's career was his invariable success. No matter what he undertook, it gained for him applause. His first essay in the 'Edinburgh Review' gave him fame as a writer; his first speech in Parliament established his reputation as an orator. The merits of his Indian Criminal Code are recognised to this day. When he published his 'Lays of Ancient Rome,' and again, when his 'History' appeared, new honours awaited him. He suffered defeat at an Edinburgh election, but the constituency quickly repented, and at the next opportunity elected him without solicitation. Even that early wish of his, that he might be considered worthy of burial in Westminster Abbey, did not fail of fulfilment at his death.

To account for this success, we must look first at his striking natural ability. His power of rapid reading, his quick understanding of what he read, and his marvellous memory, served him in both literature and politics. His pages are made fascinating by their wealth of illustration, their apt quotations, and suitable references. He had, too, a very clear understanding of the public wants, so that he was always able to hit the popular taste. Nor must we omit to note that by his sociable disposition, his good temper and his readiness in conversation, he won many friends.

Beyond these natural gifts, and much more important, was Macaulay's own character. Men have shone without great

gifts, never, with any permanence, without character. Quickness and memory did much, but his own thoroughness did more to win him his place. He gave his whole heart to his work, did not grudge any pains to make it perfect: he is known to have written parts of his 'History' and his essays three times over at least. Then, again, he was free from all pretence— a thoroughly sincere man, always better than his promise and exceeding expectation. His election for Leeds was free from every trace of bribery or even undue persuasion. While he held the office of Bankruptcy Commissioner, a bill was introduced into Parliament to abolish it, which he supported, although he was too poor to afford easily the loss of the salary. When in the Ministry, a proposal was made in reference to West Indian slavery which he could not approve, and though poverty still pursued him, he refused to pocket his scruples, and accordingly tendered his resignation. He was never in debt, although at one time he was reduced to sell the gold medals he had won at Cambridge. Sydney Smith truly said, 'I believe Macaulay to be incorruptible. You might lay ribbons, stars, garters, wealth, titles before him in vain. He has an honest, genuine love of his country, and the world would not bribe him to neglect her interests.'

Such integrity, applied also to literature, could not fail to have due weight. It has been said Macaulay's judgments were not always accurate, that he overstated the merits of some persons and understated the merits of others. Perhaps this is in some measure true. For example, Sir Elijah Impey, so severely dealt with in the following essay, has been thought to have been by no means the utterly bad man depicted by Macaulay. Be this as it may, Macaulay always said the best he knew, never did intentional injustice to anyone, and was, in fact, sometimes led into error by the very excess of heedless candour.

It is the crown of Macaulay's honour that his private life will not only bear the closest investigation, but that, highly as we may esteem his public career, the noblest part of him was exhibited only in his home and toward his friends. He was the best of sons and the best of brothers. When a baby he would cry for joy' on seeing his mother after an absence of a few hours. The same intensity of feeling lasted through his life, so that the marriage

of his sister Margaret-although he never let her know it-was a great grief to him, breaking as it did the loving relations which, until then, had subsisted between them. Her early death, while he was abroad, almost broke his heart. The affection was mutual: his sisters loved him as strongly as he loved them, but not so exclusively. They married and formed other ties-he never did. With heroic energy and singleness of purpose he devoted himself to the task of providing for his family, when his father's business misfortunes had brought them into poverty. For that end he spent some of the best years of his life in India. He did not dislike society, but his heart was in his home, and he would freely have given up public life and fame for the sake of those he loved.

Nor did Macaulay's generosity confine itself to those who had family claims upon him. It was not a mere sense of duty but the overflowing of a loving nature which made him so good. He refused payment for articles he wrote in the 'Encyclopædia Britannica,' because the publisher was his friend. His acts of private benevolence were numerous. On the morning of the day he died, he sent 257. to relieve a clergyman's distress. 'Such was his high and simple nature' writes his nephew and biographer, Mr. George Otto Trevelyan, 'that it may well be doubted whether it ever crossed his mind that to live wholly for others was a sacrifice.'

Macaulay's reputation rests, firstly on his writings, secondly on his political services. Authors are indebted to him for the existing copyright laws which secure to them the property in their books. India must thank him for the simple administration of law which she enjoys to-day. His writings speak for themselves; the interest they excite in most cases is as great to-day as it was when they first appeared. The essays on 'Lord Clive' and 'Warren Hastings' are among the best and most popular, and they are justly valued, not only for the information they contain, but, also, for the masterly style in which they are written.

In this combination of public usefulness with private virtue consists the greatness of Macaulay's life. He died at the comparatively early age of 59; but his life was so full, and, in its own directions so complete, that all sense of failure is removed. Had he lived he might have done more work, but he could not have left a sweeter memory.

II.

SKETCH OF INDIAN HISTORY TO THE TIME OF WARREN HASTINGS.

1. Very many years ago, before Christianity was founded, when forests covered all this land, and wild beasts roamed therein, a race of men called Aryans inhabited the central parts of Asia. These Aryans were much superior in intelligence, not only to the tribes which immediately surrounded them, but also to the people who then inhabited Europe. They lived chiefly by rearing sheep and cattle; and, as pasture land was plentiful, their habit was, when one tract of country was exhausted, to remove with their flocks and herds to more fertile parts. They had no settled abode, and it occasionally happened that numbers of them travelled quite away from the place of their birth. Thus, in course of time, some reached Persia, and settled there; others journeyed even to Europe, and their descendants became, long afterwards, the great nations of Greece and Rome. Some penetrated to northern Europe, establishing themselves in the forests of the continent and of our own islands.

2. Another section of the Aryans crossed into India. They found the country already inhabited by wild men, resembling, in some respects, the bushmen of Australia. They drove these into the jungles and took possession of the land.

3. So matters went on for many centuries, during which arts and learning made great advances in Europe, a more settled style of life became general, and nations formed themselves somewhat as they are to-day. But in India the changes were slight; so slight, that the Hindoos of to-day are, in habits and customs, very much what their ancestors the Aryans were when they first settled themselves in that country. They were by no means ignorant or barbarous, but the difference between them

and the Europeans had become very great. The distance prevented much intercourse, and India was to Europeans a strange, far-away country, concerning which marvellous tales were told. Some amount of trade was carried on overland, through sandy deserts and tracts of country made perilous by the presence of fierce and warlike tribes. But, until about 400 years ago, India and its people were comparatively unknown to Europeans.

4. India had not, however, been left entirely alone. Alexander the Great had reached it during his famous conquests (B.C. 327-325) and the Scythians had established themselves in the northern parts (B.C. 126). In A.D. 712 the Mohammedans appeared, and in time took possession of the whole land. The great Empire of the Moguls, having its head-quarters at Delhi, was established by Baber in 1526. Baber's grandson was the noble and famous Akbar (born 1542). For nearly two centuries a succession of capable rulers controlled the country, but after Aurungzebe died (1707), at the age of 90 years, inferior men came to the throne, and the Mohammedan power thenceforth declined rapidly.

5. About 400 years ago Europeans began to take a deep interest in India. Stories of the vast natural wealth of the country, and of the accumulated wealth of its princes, had got abroad, and adventurous men, attracted by these stories, resolved to try their fortunes there. It was a serious undertaking in those days. On board a comfortable steamer, going through the Suez Canal, the voyage, now, is over in a few weeks; but even the long sea route round the Cape of Good Hope was unknown then. The vessels available for the voyage were, many of them, scarcely larger than those which trade along the English and Irish coasts. In 1492-93 Christopher Columbus resolved that he would try to reach India by sea, and he sailed away to the west for that purpose. As is very well known, he discovered America instead. In 1497 Vasco da Gama sailed from Lisbon round the Cape of Good Hope, and, in eleven months, reached Calicut. He returned, with a friendly letter from the Rajah of Calicut to the King of Portugal, and was received with national rejoicings. The Portuguese made a very ill return for the kindness shown to their representative. They dispatched war ships to the Indian coast, and strove to