generally siding with the Radical party in politics. Stubbs, on the other hand, was a retiring student, happy with his books and his family, and almost a recluse. Although a strong Conservative, he made no attempt to emphasise or assert his political opinions, and he often boasted in later years that he had never reviewed a book in his life.

Perhaps on account of this greater reticence, which preserved him from the enmities which Freeman's outspokenness too often provoked, Stubbs was the more fortunate in gaining recognition for his work. In 1862 he was appointed librarian at Lambeth, a post in which he was succeeded by another historian, J. R. Green; and in 1866 he became Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford. The eighteen years which he spent in Oxford were certainly the most fruitful and possibly the happiest period of his life. His chief publications were the Select Charters (1870), a collection of documents and extracts from chronicles to illustrate the constitutional development of England to the end of Edward I.'s reign, and the Constitutional History of England, of which the first volume appeared in 1874, and the third and last in 1878. This latter book was at once accepted both in this country and on the Continent as the magisterial and, for the time, the definitive work on the subject. No doubt supplementary information may be and has been obtained, and upon points of detail Stubbs's conclusions may be open to modification, but the book is so cautious and based upon such exhaustive study that it is difficult to believe it can ever be quite superseded. No fewer than thirteen volumes in the Rolls Series were edited by Stubbs during these years. On the other side of his professorial work, as a lecturer, Stubbs was less obviously successful. He read his lectures from manuscript, and he did not attract a large class. Every year he was bound to deliver two public lectures, a duty at which he always grumbled. To these lectures more hearers came than to his consecutive courses, but he never drew such a crowd as came to listen to his predecessor, Goldwin Smith, or to his two successors, Freeman and Froude. Yet he was a really great and stimulating teacher. To him, more than any other man, was due the foundation and organisation of the flourishing school of modern history in Oxford. The secure basis upon which that school has been built was the strenuous study of the consecutive history of the English constitution, which Stubbs inculcated and for which he in large measure supplied the materials. The most influential and formative book in the studies of the school from that day to this has been Stubbs's Select Charters.

In 1879 Stubbs was appointed to a canonry at St Paul's, which he held along with his professorship in Oxford. He was now in a most enviable position, as his income was adequate to his needs, he had easy access to books both in Oxford and London, and in both places he was highly appre

ciated. But in 1884 he was offered and accepted
the bishopric of Chester, and five years later he was
translated to the see of Oxford. As a bishop he was
energetic and liked by his clergy, while his learn-
ing added to the prestige of the Episcopal bench.
But it may be held that his ecclesiastical duties
might have been as efficiently performed by a man
who had less obvious powers in another direction.
As a bishop Stubbs was almost lost to history and
to literature. At Chester he edited two volumes
of William of Malmesbury, and while he lived at
Cuddesdon he resumed some of his former con-
nection with the university, and sat once more on
boards and committees. But his only independent
publication in the last sixteen years of his life was
a collection of the public lectures which he had
delivered with so much open repining during his
tenure of the Oxford chair. Some of them are of
remarkable merit, and one or two show glimpses
of that genial humour which was familiar to Stubbs's
personal friends, but which is not conspicuous in
his published works and by many readers is pro-
bably unsuspected. He was fond of making epi-
grams, and one of them is worth quoting here:
Froude informs the Scottish youth
That parsons do not care for truth.
The Reverend Canon Kingsley cries
That History is a pack of lies.

What cause for judgments so malign?
A brief reflexion solves the mystery.
Froude believes Kingsley a divine,

And Kingsley goes to Froude for history!

Perhaps constitutional history does not lend itself either to humour or to eloquence. At any rate, Stubbs was more eminent as a historian than as a man of letters. For evidence of his ability to write with vigour and point the reader must go either to his little book on the Early Plantagenets, his only contribution to the innumerable manuals which have been produced in such profusion by later historians, or preferably to the Prefaces in the Rolls Series. Since Stubbs's death these Prefaces have been collected and republished in a separate volume, and they will probably prove more attractive to the general reader than the Constitutional History, which is too solid and substantial for the ordinary appetite.

Henry II. and his Sons.

Henry's division of his dominions among his sons was a measure which, as his own age did not understand it, later ones may be excused for mistaking; but the object of it was, as may be inferred from his own recorded words, to strengthen and equalise the pressure of the ruling hand in the different provinces of various laws and nationalities. The sons were to be the substitutes, not the successors of their father; the eldest as the accepted or elected sharer of the royal name, as feudal superior to his brothers, and first in the royal councils, stood in the same relation to his father as the king of the Romans to the emperor; he might rule with a full delegated power, or perhaps with inchoate independence, but the father's hand was to guide the helm of State.

Unhappily the young brood of the eagle of the broken covenant were the worst possible instruments for the working of a large and complex policy: the last creatures in the world to be made useful in carrying on a form of government which the experience of all ages has tried and found wanting.

Yet how grand a scheme of western confederation might be deduced from the consideration of the position of Henry's children; how great a dream of conquest may after all have been broken by the machinations of Lewis and Eleanor! What might not a crusade have effected headed by Henry II., with his valiant sons, the first warriors of the age; with his sons-in-law, William the Lion, William of Sicily, and Alfonso of Castile; with Philip of France, the brother-in-law of his sons; Frederick Barbarossa, his distant kinsman and close ally; the princes of Champagne and Flanders, his cousins? In it the grand majestic chivalry of the emperor, the wealth of Sicily, the hardy valour and practical skill of Spain, the hereditary crusading ardour of the land of Godfrey of Bouillon and Stephen of Blois, the statesman-like vigour and simple piety of the great Saxon hero, under the guidance of the craft and sagacity, the mingled unimpetuosity and caution, of Henry II., might have presented Europe to Asia in a guise which she has never yet assumed. Yet all the splendour of the family confederation, all the close-woven, widespread web that fortune and sagacity had joined to weave, end in the cruel desertion, the baffled rage, the futile curses of the chained leopard in the last scene at Chinon. The lawful sons, the offspring, the victims, and the avengers of a heartless policy; the loveless children of a loveless mother have left the last duties of an affection they did not feel to the hands of a bastard-the child of an early, obscure, misplaced, degrading, but not a merce. nary love. (From the Preface to Benedictus Abbas.)

Impartiality in a Historian.

For my own part, I do not see why an honest partisan should not write an honest book if he can persuade himself to look honestly at his subject, and make allowance for his own prejudices. I know it is somewhat critical work, and a man who knows himself in one way may be quite ignorant of himself in another. I take Hallam as an illustrious example. Hallam knew himself to be a political partisan, and, wherever he knew that political prejudice might darken his counsel, he guarded most carefully against it: he did not claim the judicial character without fitting himself for it; and where he knew himself to be sitting as judge he judged admirably; so admirably that the advanced advocates even of his own views have long ago thrown him over as too timid and temporising for their purpose. Yet where he was not awake to his own prejudice, in matters, for instance, regarding religion and the Church, in which he seems to have had no doubt about his own infallibility of negation, how ludicrously and transparently unfair he is!

I do not see any necessity for this. I do not see why a man should not say once for all: I like Charles I. better than Oliver Cromwell; I like the cause for which Charles believed himself to be contending better than that for which Cromwell strove. Charles is attractive to me, Oliver is repulsive; Charles is my friend, Oliver is my foe but am I bound to maintain that my friend is always right and my enemy always wrong; am I bound to hold Charles for a saint, Oliver for a monster;

:

am I bound never to mention Charles without a sigh or Oliver without a sneer; am I bound to conceal the faults of the one and to believe every calumny against the other? If you like, put it the other way, believe in the great Protestant statesman, treat Charles as the overrated fine gentleman, the narrow-minded advocate of a theory which he did not understand, the pig-headed maintainer of a cause you dislike. You may be a partisan, but can you not believe that, if you believe your own side of the question, truth will be found on your side? Misrepresentation, exaggeration, dishonesty of advocacy, will only disparage the presentment which you desire to make of your own convictions and your own prepossessions. Nay, I would go further, and say I should like Charles better than Oliver even if his cause were less my own than I conceive it to be. I am ready to stick to my friends and vote against my unfriends; but why should I shut my eyes to the false and foolish things that my friends do, or to the noble aspirations, honesty, and good intentions of those whom I think wrong in their means and mistaken in their ends? Yet, as I began by saying, without some infusion of spite it seems as if history could not be written; that no man's zeal is roused to write unless it is moved by the desire to write down. Of course I seem to be stating extreme cases, but it is extreme cases that make their own advertisements, and that do the great mischief. Here the study of ancient history has its great advantage over modern; yet battles are still fought over the character of Tiberius, and the 'lues rehabitandi' has given a new reading to the history of Marius and Sylla. (From Lectures on Mediaval and Modern History.)

RICHARD LODGE.

Walter Bagehot (1826-77) was born at Langport, Somerset, and from school at Bristol he passed in 1842 to University College, London, where he took his M.A. in 1848; in 1852 he was called to the Bar, but joined his father as a banker and shipowner at Langport. From Paris in 1851 he had written a series of letters justifying Napoleon's coup d'état. Soon after he became a writer for the periodicals, and was associated with R. H. Hutton on the National Review. In 1858 he married a daughter of Mr Wilson, founder of the Economist newspaper, and from 1860 till his death he was its editor. His works include The English Constitution (1867), a book of great value, translated into several foreign tongues; Physics and Politics (1872), applying to politics the evolution theory; Lombard Street (1873), a standard work on the money market; and three volumes of literary, biographical, and economic studies, with Memoir by R. H. Hutton (1879-81; new ed. 1895). Bagehot was an unconventional, original, and suggestive thinker, a trenchant but sagacious critic, and a vigorous and even brilliant writer. He was readier than most contemporaries to give due weight to the historical and evolutionary aspects of things; he recognised the limitations of the Ricardian economics, and treated political economy as a science not of rigorous laws, but of tendencies. There are essays on him in Mr Birrell's Miscel lanies (1902) and in Sir Leslie Stephen's Studies of a Biographer (2nd series, 1902).

Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1829-1902), one of the great historical specialists of his time, gave in his career a supreme example of a life devoted to the realisation of a great idea. Born at Ropley in Hants, he was educated at Winchester School and at Christ Church, Oxford. Quitting Oxford in 1855, he married Isabella, youngest daughter of Edward Irving, the founder of the Apostolic Church, of which communion he became a member, and held high place in its hierarchy. In 1874 he was appointed Professor of History in King's College, London-a post which he held for fourteen years; and throughout the same period he acted as lecturer for the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching. In 1882 he received a pension of £150 from the Government of Mr Gladstone; and in 1884 All Souls College, Oxford, elected him to a Research Fellowship. On the death of Mr Froude in 1894 he was offered the Regius Professorship of History at Oxford; but, now in his sixty-fifth year, he declined the honour that he might devote himself to the great work of his life. He had honorary degrees from Oxford, Edinburgh, and Gottingen.

From the date of his leaving Oxford (1855) Gardiner addressed himself to the task which he unremittingly pursued to the close of his life-the history of England from the accession of James I. to the Restoration. In 1865 the first instalment of the work appeared in two volumes, and their successors followed at regular intervals till, in the last year of his life, he was disabled by ill-health. A fragment of the third volume of his History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (1654–66) was posthumously published in 1903. The great work, thus so nearly brought to completion, is a monument of patient, exact, and disinterested labour; but it was likewise a labour of love which from first to last engaged the whole heart and mind of its author. It was by natural affinity that Gardiner selected the special period of English history of which he has produced such a minute and exhaustive record. Of deep, though unobtrusive, religious feeling, he was naturally attracted to a period when religion played so large a part in the national development. His sympathies were with the Parliament rather than with the Crown in the great controversy that cleft the English nation in twain, but he was of too fair a mind and too genial a temper to do injustice to any mode of thought or feeling, however alien to his own. His estimates of the Royalists Strafford and Montrose are as generous as his estimates of the Parliamentarians Pym and Hampden. Of Cromwell, the dominating figure in his work, he has presented a portrait which in many of its traits differs from that of Carlyle, yet (due deduction made for the Carlylean emphasis) the lineaments presented in both portraits are essentially the same. For Gardiner, Cromwell was the 'most representative Englishman that ever lived'-typical of his countrymen by his innate conservatism and

his statesmanship never determined by abstract theories, but by the immediate perception of actual fact.

The greatness of Gardiner's work does not proceed from his power as a thinker or from his skill as a literary artist; it was by his passion for truth and accuracy, his candour and breadth of sympathy, his unwearying industry, that he achieved a work which must ever hold its place among the chief historical productions in English literature. In the sense in which the expression is now employed, Gardiner was not, and did not desire to be, a 'scientific historian.' He did not conceive it to be the duty of the historian to efface

himself in the presentation of his materials, nor to eschew all expression of his own opinion on the events and actions he has to narrate. Everywhere he frankly pronounces his judgments, whether of condemnation or approval; and in so doing he held that he was discharging not the least important function of the historian. In his conception, if history was not directly didactic, the writing of it is a vain labour; and the true scientific historian is he who most conscientiously seeks to ascertain and present the lessons which the past has to offer.

Other works of Mr Gardiner besides his principal History are The Thirty Years' War and The First Two Stuarts (' Epochs of Modern History'), Student's History of England, An Introduction to English History (in conjunction with Dr Bass Mullinger), and Cromwell's Place in History (being the first series of Ford Lectures, delivered in 1896).

P. HUME BROWN.

James Gairdner was born at Edinburgh in 1828, and at eighteen entered the Public Record Office in London, where he became assistant-keeper in 1859. He has shown a rare combination of erudition, accuracy, and judicial temper in editing a long series of historical documents, notably the letters and papers of Richard III. and Henry VII., and the continuation of Professor Brewer's calendar of Henry VIII. The same qualities are seen in his own works, which include The Houses of Lancaster and York (1874), Life of Richard III. (1878), Studies in English History (1881; written in conjunction with Spedding), Henry VII. (1889), and a History of the English Church in the Sixteenth Century (1902). He edited the 'Paston Letters' in 1874, and re-edited them in 1901.

Richard Holt Hutton (1826-97), son and grandson of Unitarian ministers, was born at Leeds, and studied at University College, London, at Heidelberg and Berlin, and under James Martineau at the Manchester New College. He was for some time a Unitarian preacher, became principal of a Nonconformist university hall, and edited a Unitarian periodical; but under the influence of F. W. Robertson and F. D. Maurice he was drawn farther and farther from dogmatic Unitarianism, and ultimately joined the Church of England. He wrote for the Prospective Review, assisted in editing the Economist, and, with his friend Bagehot, the new quarterly National Review, besides teaching mathematics in Bedford College from 1856 till 1865. In 1861 he and Mr Townsend became associated as proprietors and joint-editors of the Spectator (founded in 1828), to which he gave the impress of his accomplished, resolute, devout mind. His department was literature, as his colleague's was politics; but both agreed in siding with the North against the South in the American Civil War, and thus for a time injured the success of their paper. Later, both editors greatly strengthened opposition to Irish Home Rule. Hutton became more and more a champion of Christianity in every form against naturalism; and he came to sympathise more and more fully with the neo-Catholic movement, and to revere Cardinal Newman. It was inevitable that he should have constant regard to ethical and religious interests in his judgments of men and movements, whether literary, social, or political; and he was perhaps stronger in sympathetic exposition than in pure criticism. He edited Bagehot's works and wrote a Memoir. His Studies in Parliament (1866), Essays, Theological and Literary (1871; 3rd ed. 1888), Modern Guides of English Thought (1887), and Contemporary Thought and Thinkers (1894) were partially recast and republished from the periodicals; his monograph on Scott (Men of Letters,' 1878) was his least effective publication. The article on George Eliot in this work is abridged from that written by him for Chambers's Encyclopædia in 1889. Hutton's

last years were clouded by the melancholia of his second wife, who, like his first, belonged to the Liverpool Roscoe family. A memorial volume by Mr Hogben appeared in 1899, but with few personal details, in deference to his own wish that no biography of him should be written ; and Dr Robertson Nicoll published a study of him as critic and theologian in 1903.

George Bruce Malleson (1825-98) was born in London, entered the army 1842, served in India, edited the Calcutta Review 1864-69, and came home as colonel in 1877. He wrote quite a score of military books, the most important of which are the Decisive Battles of India (1883), the History of the French in India (1868), and the volumes of the History of the Indian Mutiny (1878-80), which continue Kaye's fragment of the History of the Sepoy War. Some later writers charge him with haste and inaccuracy.

He

James Hannay (1827-73), born at Dumfries, after five years in the navy, was at eighteen dismissed for insubordination by a court-martial sentence, afterwards quashed as irregular. edited the Edinburgh Courant 1860–64, and from 1868 till his death was British consul at Barcelona. Of his novels the best are Singleton Fontenoy (1850) and Eustace Conyers (1855). His Lectures on Satire and Satirists (1854) deal with satirists of all ages-Horace and Juvenal, Erasmus and Buchanan, Butler and Swift, Moore and Byron— and are not less remarkable for his appreciative insight than for his own satiric power. Essays from the Quarterly (1861) show wide knowledge and fine literary sense, and, like all his works, are lighted up with an extraordinary wealth of epigram, simile, and suggestive allusion, classical and other. Other works were Three Hundred Years of a Norman [the Gurney] House (1866) and Studies on Thackeray (1869). The essay prefixed by him to an edition of Poe's poems was an admirable piece of work. There is an appreciation of his work in the Bookman for 1893.

Henry Morley (1822-94), the son of a London apothecary, was educated at the Moravian school of Neuwied-on-the-Rhine and King's College, London. After practising medicine at Madeley 1844-48, and keeping school at Manchester and Liverpool, he settled down in London in 1850 to literary work. His first publication was a volume of verse called Sunrise in Italy (1848); his next ventures were in the magazines-Household Words, All the Year Round, and the Examiner, a series of articles on public health being published also as a book. He was successively sub-editor and editor of the Examiner (1859-64), and, English lecturer at King's College for eight years, was for nearly quarter of a century (1865-89) Professor of English Literature there. Meanwhile he published Lives of Palissy (1852), Cardan (1854), Cornelius Agrippa (1856), and Clement Marot (1870), Memoirs of Bartholomew Fair (1857), and two

volumes of fairy tales (1859-60). To another category belong the works by which he is best known -his English Writers (carried down in 10 vols. to Shakespeare, 1864-94), A First Sketch of English Literature (1873, which before his death reached its 34th thousand); his Library of English Literature (5 vols. 1876-82); his English Literature in the Reign of Victoria (1881); besides four admirable series edited by him-Morley's Universal Library (63 vols. at a shilling, 1883-88), Cassell's National Library (214 vols. at threepence, 1886-90), the Carisbrooke Library (14 vols. 1888-91), and Morley's Companion Poets (9 vols. 1891-92). His Early Papers and Some Memories (1891) were largely autobiographical.

David Masson, the biographer of Milton, was born at Aberdeen in 1822, and educated at Marischal College there and at the University of Edinburgh, where he studied theology under Dr Chalmers. While still but a boy in years he was editing an Aberdeen weekly paper; for a time he was on the literary staff of the publishers of the present work, and to their 'Educational Course' he largely contributed; but by 1847 he had settled in London, and was busy writing for reviews, magazines, and encyclopædias. In 1852 he succeeded to the chair of English Literature in University College, vacated by A. H. Clough; in 1865 he was appointed to the corresponding chair in Edinburgh University, and this post he held till he retired from active work in 1895. From 1859 till 1868 he edited Macmillan's Magazine; his first published work, Essays, Biographical and Critical, saw the light in 1856, and was reprinted with other essays in 1874-76 in three volumes named from 'Wordsworth, Shelley, and Keats,' 'The Three Devils — Luther's, Milton's, and Goethe's,' and 'Chatterton' respectively. But his greatest lifework is the magistral Life of John Milton, which justly claimed to be 'narrated in connection with the Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary History of his Time;' admittedly the most complete biography extant of any Englishman, it has well been called 'a noble and final monument to the poet's memory.' The six volumes which it comprises appeared between the years 1859 and 1880, and, resting as they do on wide and laborious researches, present a marvellous compendium of material invaluable for the study not merely of Milton's life, but for all contemporary history-political, social, literary, theological. A three-volume edition of Milton's poems (1874; new ed. 1890) was followed by two smaller editions. Amongst Professor Masson's other works are books on the British novelists (1859), on recent British philosophy (1865), an exhaustive study of Drummond of Hawthornden (1873), a volume of Edinburgh Sketches and Memories (1892), and the admirable little book on De Quincey in the Men of Letters' series. Carlyle Personally and in his Writings (1885) bore testimony to a still more memorable friendship. Masson

edited the standard edition of De Quincey's works (1889-90); and as editor of the register of the Privy Council of Scotland from 1879 till 1898 he put much admirable historical work into the exhaustive but luminous introductions to the annual volumes published under his charge. He delivered the Rhind Lectures in 1885, and was appointed royal historiographer of Scotland in 1893. In London he had been the zealous secretary of the Friends of Italy; in Edinburgh he took an active part in promoting the higher education of women; and a succession of eminent writers revere him as a spiritual father. A vigorous and original thinker, a learned, sagacious, and open-minded historian, he has accepted the high responsibility and maintained the dignity of the true man of letters, and has from the first been recognised as an author of weight, as a critic of exceptional breadth and sanity.

Strafford's Doom.

The plot having been discovered, and those concerned in it having fled, the consequent indignation of the two Houses, backed by a perfect tumult in London, and cries of 'Justice, Justice,' from excited mobs in the streets, was fatal to Strafford. Knowing this, and that an attempt to bribe the Lieutenant of the Tower had failed, he himself wrote, on the 4th of May, to the King, expressing resignation to his fate, and only recommending his four young children to his Majesty's protection. On the 8th the Bill of Attainder passed the Lords in a thin House. All then depended on the King.

It is not for a historian to be very ready with opinions as to what a king, or any other person, might, could, or should have done on this or that occasion. But here there can be no doubt. All the sophistication in the world cannot make a doubt. If ever there may be a moment in a man's life when, with all the clamour of a nation urging to an act, all personal and State reasons persuading to it as expedient, and all the pressure of circumstances impelling to it as inevitable, still even they who would approve of the act in itself must declare that for that man to do it were dastardly, such a moment had come for Charles. To dare all, to see London and England in uproar, to lose throne, life, and everything, rather than assent to the death of his minister, was Charles's plain duty. Strafford had been his ablest minister by far, had laboured for him with heart and head, had made the supremacy of the Crown the cause of his life; not an act he had done, one may say, but was with Charles's consent, or his implied command and approbation; and it was in trust in all this, and in the royal promise that 'not a hair of his head should be touched,' that Strafford, against his own better judgment, had run If the words 'honour' the risk of coming to London. and fidelity' have any meaning, there was but one right course for the King. How did he behave? On Sunday the 9th of May he had a consultation with Juxon, Usher, and Williams, as spiritual advisers, and with his Privy Councillors generally, respecting his scruples of conscience. Juxon and Usher gave him the manly advice that, if his conscience did not consent to the act, he ought not to do it; Williams drew some distinction or other between 'public conscience' and 'private conscience.' The sophistry helped Charles. He appointed a commission, consisting of Arundel and other