eager anticipation and proud self-consciousness. It was the promised land on which he was looking down and mentally appropriating, when-nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futura-the scene was overclouded; his earthly course was run; the contemplated masterpiece was left a fragment, and (such were the expectations formed of it and him) the pen he let drop bade fair to remain like the bow of Ulysses which no one else could bend, or the spear of Achilles, not to be touched but by Peleides' hand.

At length after a long pause of respectful admiration, that pen has been grasped with a hand that shows no signs of tremulousness. This volume (says Lord Stanhope in the Preface to the work before us) has been written in accordance with the wish expressed to me by several persons, as a connecting link between the close of Lord Macaulay's "History of England" and the commencement of that from the peace of Utrecht, which I published whilst still bearing the title of Mahon.' These several persons, representing the 'friends' by whom the reluctance of coy authors is conventionally overcome, when they desiderated a connectinglink, could have meant nothing more than a consecutive narrative which should enable them to follow the train of events, the unadorned march of history, from the Revolution of 1688, with which Lord Macaulay begins, to the peace of Versailles, with which Lord Stanhope ends. They could never have regarded the vacant space as a chasm or channel between two cliffs or banks with what Sir Roderick Murchison would call geological affinities, or as an unoccupied territory between two countries similarly situated as regards climate, scenery, and vegetation. To pass from one of these two authors to the other, is like passing from a wild variegated upland to a well-cultivated plain-from the tropics to the temperate zone-from the region of scorching suns, water-spouts, gorgeous hues, and luscious fruits, to that of refreshing rain and green herbage. They had next to nothing in common. Their best and worst qualities were essentially distinct, and the most doubtful service an admirer could do for either was to force them into juxtaposition or engage one as the supplement of the other.

Nor will the comparison be altogether to the disadvantage of the one who, at the first blush, might be expected to suffer most from it. If Lord Stanhope is less dazzling, he is most trustworthy; if less captivating as a companion, he is far safer as a guide. If his portraits and descriptions do not equally fasten on the memory or the imagination, let it not be forgotten that they are

rarely overcharged. If he does not snatch a grace beyond the reach of art, neither does he strive at effects beyond the bounds of accuracy. 'He has undoubtedly some of the most valuable qualities of a historian, great diligence in examining authorities, great judgment in weighing testimonies, and great impartiality in weighing characters.' This was written of him at the commencement of his literary career by the illustrious writer to whose succession he has been encouraged to aspire. We should be inclined to go further. He has lived on terms of intimacy with all the most celebrated of his contemporaries, warriors, statesmen, authors, and wits; his rank and connexions have given him access to peculiar sources of information, oral and documentary; he has been admitted to French archives by imperial mandate; he has corresponded about the military genius of Marlborough with Wellington, and about the administrative ability of Walpole with Peel; he has heard from the lips of an octogenarian Grenville the curious anecdotes of Wolfe's wild bearing at Lord Temple's dinner-table and his recital of Gray's Elegy' in the boat on the St. Lawrence. None of these or similar opportunities have been thrown away upon Lord Stanhope. His memory is stored with striking traits and incidents, which he introduces with tact and felicity, so that few works of a strictly historical character are more legitimately entertaining than his. We say legitimately; because the most obstinate stickler for the dignity of history must admit that nothing really illustrative of character, however light, can be deemed alien from it. If, therefore, the work before us should prove inferior to its predecessors from the same pen, the comparative failure must be owing to the self-imposed conditions under which it has been composed.

Lord Stanhope had gone over much of the same ground in his History of the War of the Succession,' and Lord Macaulay had followed him in a brilliant review of that History; so that he has no longer the stimulant of novelty, and, perforce, comes repeatedly into competition with both Lord Macaulay and himself. Nor is this all. One or both had already painted highly-finished portraits of the principal personages who figure in the connecting link-of Marlborough, Godolphin, Somers, Harley, St. John, and Swift, amongst the rest. These could not be ignored or kept back; the sole alternative lay between reference and repetition; and the reader is quietly sent back to another history,' or suddenly looks up in the midst of a fine description or vivid narrative, exclaiming, Pray, have I not read something

like that before? The life, character, and romantic career, of Lord Peterborough occupy a prominent space in the History of the War of the Succession." They supplied Lord Macaulay with a congenial subject, on which he has eloquently expatiated in his review of that work; and room is notwithstanding found for a pointed summary of them in this supplemental History. These defects of plan, however, will be hardly perceptible to the reader whose attention is concentrated on the individual work; and they are so far redeemed by the merits of the execution, that the author may be honestly congratulated on having decidedly improved his high position in that class of literature, to shine in which has been the praiseworthy ambition of his life.

If we were required to name the portion in which he best displays his capacity for clear, continuous, and thoughtful narrative, we should select his account of the Union

with Scotland, which he has compressed within less than twenty-pages (pp. 269-288), including the terms, the proceedings, and the results. But it would be spoiled by abridgment, and such space as we can afford must be devoted to more attractive subjects. The Duke of Marlborough is one which will never weary till the precise truth shall be known and declared concerning him; till, at any rate, his name shall be cleared from the cloud of obloquy by which its brightness is obscured, or till his admiring countrymen shall be one and all prepared to say with Bolingbroke, in reference to one of his alleged weaknesses, He was so great a man, that I forgot he had that defect.' Lord Stanhope approaches the topic with the best intentions, and in the best possible spirit:To judge him (the Duke) rightly we should avoid both that eagerness in his depreciation which Lord Macaulay shows, and that servile spirit in which certain other writers (Coxe and Alison, to wit) have striven to conceal his faults, and to flatter his descendants. We should neither seek to dim the lustre of his glory, nor yet be dazzled by its rays.' So far, so good; but Lord Stanhope is too uncompromising an admirer of Lord Macaulav to be able to shake off his authority at will, and he has either openly adopted or tacitly confirmed the most damaging charges levelled with all the force of rhetorical exaggeration against the Duke. If we knew nothing of him but what may be collected from these two noble writers, we should infer that, although never unequal to any position or situation in which he was placed, his opportunities of distinction were. procured by a succession of lucky accidents,

by intrigue, by treachery, or by feminine favour and caprice.

Turning to Macaulay for the earlier stages of the career of Marlborough, we are led to believe that it began in no very creditable. fashion:

'Soon after the Restoration, in the gay and

dissolute times which have been celebrated by the lively pen of Hamilton, James, young and ardent in the pursuit of pleasure, had been attracted by Arabella Churchill, one of the maids of honour who waited on his first wife. The young lady was plain: but the taste of James was not nice: and she became his avowed misThe necessities of the Churchills tress. their only feeling about Arabella's seduction were pressing: their loyalty was ardent; and seems to have been joyful surprise that so homely a girl should have attained such high preferment. Her interest was indeed of great use to her relations: but none of them was so fortunate as her eldest brother John, a fine youth, who carried a pair of colours in the Foot Guards. He rose fast in the Court and

in the army, and was early distinguished as a in the army, and was early distinguished as a

man of fashion and of pleasure.'

Charles II., referring to the ugliness of his brother's mistresses, was wont to say that they were assigned him by his confessor as penances; but the story told by the lively pen of Hamilton of the manner in which the personal attractions of Arabella Churchill became known, proves that his seection in this instance did no discredit to his taste, and the date of the adventure is inconsistent with the ingenious theory that her brother was indebted to it for the pair of colours which he carried in the Foot Guards. The same interest that gained her the appointment of maid of honour to the Duchess, had gained him that of page to the Duke; and the usual change from page to ensign is traditionally reported to have been accelerated by the eager inclination for the military profession which he exhibited when in attendance on his royal patron at a review. He received his first commission in his sixteenth year, long before such high preferment' was conferred on his sister; and another depreciating story related of him is also discredited by the dates:

the violent but fickle fondness of the Duchess 'He was, during a short time, the object of of Cleveland. On one occasion he was caught with her by the King, and was forced to leap out of the window. She rewarded this hazardous feat of gallantry with a present of five thousand pounds. With this sum the prudent young hero instantly bought an annuity of five hundred a year, well secured on landed property.'

The principal authority is Lord Chester

field, whom Lord Macaulay pronounces an unexceptionable witness; for the annuity was a charge on the estate of his grandfather, Halifax; adding, 'I believe there is no foundation for a disgraceful addition to the story which may be found in Pope: "The gallant, too, to whom she paid it down, Lived to refuse his mistress half-a-crown."" About as much foundation as for the main incident. Coxe found amongst the Blenheim papers the original agreement, dated in 1674, stating that Colonel Churchill had purchased from Lord Halifax an annuity of 500l. per annum for the sum of 4,500l.; and Lord Chesterfield's version (adopted by Lord Macaulay) is that while he (Churchill) was an Ensign in the Guards, the Duchess of Cleveland, struck by these very graces, gave him 5,000l., with which he immediately bought an annuity of 5007. a year of my grandfather Halifax, which was the foundation of his subsequent fortune.' The foundation of his fortune was laid before the purchase of the annuity by personal merits of the most unexceptionable kind. After serving with credit at the siege of Tangiers, he formed one of the detachment of British troops which, under the command of the Duke of Monmouth, was sent to co-operate with the troops of Louis under Turenne and Condé in 1672, and it was under French masters that he perfected himself in the art by which he was destined to humiliate France. At the siege of Nimeguen, in 1673, being then a Captain of Grenadiers, he was with the storming party which, led by the Duke of Monmouth in person, effected a lodgment on the ramparts. A mine was sprung, and the French, taking advantage of the confusion, had recovered the work, when the Duke and Churchill, with only twelve men, again drove them from it, and in the thick of the mêlée the captain, who was wounded, had the good fortune to come opportunely to the rescue of his general. For this service he received the thanks of Louis Le Grand at the head of the army, and Monmouth presented him to Charles II., saying, 'To the bravery of this gallant officer I owe my life.'

Lord Stanhope has printed amongst his Miscellanies this brief note from the Duke of Wellington:

The letter, dated Paris, March 29, 1674, is from Lockhart to the War Minister, and runs thus:-This will be delivered to you by Mr. Churchill, whom I yesterday presented to his Most Christian Majesty, on the part of the king of Great Britain, with a request for the grant of a commission of Colonel of Infantry in his Majesty's service.' Although Lord Stanhope prints the Duke's letter and document without comment, he could hardly have forgotten Coxe's statement that, on the 3rd April, 1674, three days after the date of Lockhart's letter, Churchill was appointed by Louis to the colonelcy of the English regiment vacated by the resignation of Lord Peterborough. As colonel of this regiment he served in the ensuing campaign under Turenne. When he returned to England, it was with an established name and rank; nor, considering his saving habits, do we see anything suspicious in the circumstance that he was able to invest four or five thousand pounds in an annuity in 1674.

The only palliation-valeat quantumfor Marlborough's secret correspondence with St. Germains, is that he was not more culpable in this respect than many of his most honoured contemporaries, and we are rather surprised that Lord Stanhope should persevere in aggravating his guilt by reverting in the genuine Macaulay spirit to his disclosure of the expedition to Brest' as 'a disclosure by which, as is well known, the expedition was defeated, and several hundred English lives were lost.' It is well known that the disclosure was so timed as to be utterly ineffective, that the expedition would have been defeated and the lives lost just the same, if his disclosure had never been made at all; and it is an abuse of words to confound a mere make-believe of good-will towards the dethroned sovereign with a fixed design to bring about the national disaster that ensued.

'Strathfieldsaye, February 19, 1837.

'Ever your most sincerely,

'W.'

though, therefore, there can be no doubt that the extraordinary height of favour and influence to which he rose immediately on the accession of Anne was owing in a great