ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

der with which his opening volumes were materials, in no way detracts from his merit; perused, and with which in all parts of the as it only implies that he was in earnest, and world a work was received which united the that his heart was in his work, and in the rarest accuracy of an historian to the charms moral which he designed that it should conand witchery of a romance. The rarest ac- vey. His devotion to William of Orange curacy we may well claim for them; for al- may, in detail, partake somewhat of exagthough the world has long since forgotten geration; but it is exaggeration of that sort most of the microscopic cavils with which he which a skilful artist employs to produce the was then assailed, and although the more effect of life and reality. He was the centre shallow and dull of his readers were slow to of his historical picture, nor can the most believe that truth could be made more inter- impartial lover of truth complain that the esting than fiction, it should not be forgot- light falls on him advantageously. ten that he came triumphant out of not only the more lofty crucible of opinion, but the meaner meshes and cobwebs of minute censors of dates, and carping critics of small facts. To some of these we adverted in our notice of the two first volumes in 1849, and further investigation has only resulted in placing his industry and fidelity as much above those of his hostile critics, as he soars above all his predecessors in lofty conception and comprehensive grasp.

The third and fourth volumes were devoted to themes more varied in character, less exciting, and more difficult to handle. The Revolution was over. The new dynasty had taken possession, and inspired confidence in England and respect abroad. But the difficulties which common dangers had smothered, broke out on the return of safety and order. The scope of these volumes was to recount how the foundations of constitutional government were laid, on the ruins His object was to lay the foundations of a which the Stuarts had left behind them; History of England from the Revolution how the jealousies incident to the power of which should be firm and stable; to fix firmly a foreigner were met and surmounted; how in the public mind, and to illustrate and per- the intrigues of the exiled family and the petuate in the remembrance of his country- designs of France were counteracted and men, the real principles on which our con- baffled - for how long treachery was on stitution was founded, and the importance as the eve of success, what difficulties it caused, well as the glory of the struggle from which and what disasters it threatened, and how in our political privileges arose. He had seen, the end it was trodden out and extinguished. as we have all seen, how easy it is, when the In the course of this narrative the historian, battle is over, to forget the principle for of course, was obliged to encounter many which the contending armies fought, in the topics of controversy, of smaller influence, ease and security of the victory. He had but on that account more keenly contested seen those who lived in liberty and in peace, now, than the broader battles of Jacobite because their forefathers lived in strife and and Whig. But here, also, although the ocaction, only too ready to recall, amid the casions for criticism were of course more nuconstitutional privileges which we enjoy, the merous, Macaulay's power, knowledge, and obsolete doctrines of discarded prerogative, brilliancy have imparted an interest and life and to weep over the woes of unworthy to his narrative which no other historian has rulers. The theme, therefore, which the two attained. No doubt his campaigns are dull, first volumes of his history profess to illus- and so, we suspect, were the campaigns trate, was the commencement of that great themselves. But the gradual growth of the struggle; and no one can forget with what existing system of government, the first a trumpet tone he sounded in the ears of the cabinet, the rise of the Bank of England, the British public, and indeed of the world, the history of constitutional finance, and many great principles of individual and constitu- subjects of a cognate nature, are treated of tional liberty. in a style both weighty and striking, fitted equally to attract the attention, to impress the memory, and to stimulate inquiry. We there are taught how the turbid and troubled state of the political waters, the instability of all public men, the intrigues of most of

In these volumes he told, with a spirit and elegance never, we believe, surpassed, the eventful story of the Revolution, painting it in colors not more brilliant than true. That he created a hero for his theme out of his THIRD SERIES. LIVING AGE.

798

them with the Court of Saint Germains, and the strong, sturdy form of parliamentary supremacy cropping up amid the general disquietude, surround, perplex, and disturb the uncongenial mind of the Dutch monarch, whose thoughts are far away in Holland, and whose cares and dreams are all with the ambition of France and the balance of power. Ireland, too, has to be conquered, Scotland has to be appeased and settled, her Church to be satisfied, and her clans to be concili

ated or overawed.

We took occasion, when in the course of our critical labors it became our duty to review these volumes, to enter into various discussions as to the different views which Mr. Macaulay had maintained in the course of them. As he was obliged to deal with subjects less exciting and less interesting in themselves, to some extent the prejudices of the writer become more apparent than they had been when his topics were more general, and we did not hesitate to express the opinion which we entertained upon several questions on which we differed from his views. But although it was impossible to deny that this great work, like all others, was fairly susceptible of criticism, we never abandoned the opinion which we formed at first, that while Macaulay had added a new charm to history, and had thrown over the detail of facts all the interest of fictitious narrative, he was not only the most eloquent, but the most accurate, of historians. It is true that he paints so vividly and writes with so much emphasis, that any errors he does commit strike more vividly than in a duller and a tamer style. And so he has been assailed by small critics upon numberless little points of very little materiality to the general scope or accuracy of his narrative, but which have been made the excuse for assaults as slender in their foundation as they are ungenerous and unworthy in themselves.

wood's Magazine in critique on the two first volumes), "in treating of the merits of this very remarkable production, adopt the not uncommon practice of reviewers on such occasions. We shall not pretend to be better informed on the details of the subject than the author. We shall not set up the reading of a few weeks or months against the study of half a lifetime. We shall not imitate certain critics who look at the bottom of the pages for the authorities of the author, and having got the clue to the requisite information, proceed toexamine with the utmost minuteness every particular of his narrative, and make in consequence a vast display of knowledge wholly derived from the reading which he has suggested. We shall not be so deluded as to suppose we have made a great discovery in biography, because we have ascertained that some Lady Caroline of the last generation was born on the 7th of October, 1674, instead of the 8th of February, 1675, as the historian with shameful negligence has affirmed; nor shall we take credit to ourselves for a journey down to Hampshire to consult the parish register on the subject. As little shall we in future accuse Macaulay of inaccuracy in describing battles, because on referring, without mentioning it, to the military authorities he has quoted, and the page he has referred to, we have discovered that at some battle, as Malplaquet, Lottum's men stood on the right of the Prince of Orange, when he says they stood on the left; or that Marlborough dined on a certain day at one o'clock, when in point of fact he did not sit down, as is proved by incontestable authority, till half-past two. We shall leave such minute and Lilliputian criticism to the minute and Lilliputian minds by whom alone they are ever made. Mr. Macaulay can afford to smile at all reviewers who affect to possess more than his own gigantic stores of information."

We have made this quotation because an attempt has been recently made to revive the notion which was so thoroughly exposed and refuted at the time, that while Macaulay's history is interesting, it is not trustWe hardly expected that it would have worthy. And, strange to say, in the very been necessary now, after the lapse of twelve journal in which these honorable sentiments years, to have resumed any topic of that were expressed, a variety of articles have kind. We quoted, in our criticism on the appeared which have for their object to confirst two volumes, a passage from a contem-vey this impression to the public, and which porary periodical, which, with reference to a are now published separately under the few remarks we are now going to make, it somewhat pretentious title of "The New may not be amiss again to present to our Examen," a work which we have prefixed readers :to our present article. Had Lord Macaulay "We shall not," (said a writer in Black-been alive, we should certainly not have

preciate and cry down the greatest efforts of genius, and the noblest aspirations of free men, because of blemishes and faults such as these, if blemishes and faults they be.

But is the general charge true? Has it any semblance of truth? We may judge of Hercules by his foot, and of this critic, who

taken the trouble of replying to so very superficial and so very inaccurate a performance. He knew himself how to deal with all assaults of that kind in a fashion which never left his adversaries any reason to congratulate themselves on the result of their tourney. We only call attention to it now from a feeling of indignation not un-is no Hercules, by one or two instances; natural at the flimsy grounds on which the assault is made, and the time at which it has appeared. Probably the author in collecting and publishing these essays had no intention but to promote historical truth; but we could only wish that he had borrowed from the historian whom he so unreservedly attacks, a little of his careful study, clear appreciation, and accurate research.

and those we shall select will be more than sufficient. At least we are entitled to require at Mr. Paget's hands that he shall be free from the defect which he so bitterly blames. And now for a word or two on some of the illustrations by which he endeavors to make good the attack which he has with so much temerity undertaken.

As to Marlborough he uses very strong We have no intention of following Mr. language; he quotes a passage—a striking Paget through the various criticisms which passage enough-in which Macaulay charges this volume contains. But we mean simply Marlborough with having betrayed to the to illustrate in a few sentences the incon- French Government the intended attack upon clusive nature of his arguments, and the Brest in 1694, and having thereby lured Talcarping spirit of his work. He chooses as mash the admiral to an action, which resulted the subject of his depreciatory remarks five in his death. Macaulay says not only that themes, the Duke of Marlborough, the Marlborough had betrayed the intended atmassacre of Glencoe, the Highlands of Scot-tack to the French, and that thereby the enland, Viscount Dundee, and William Penn; and he thinks he has proved in all these that Macaulay has committed errors, has omitted facts which he might have known, or has stated facts which he has not verified. He thinks he is unjust to Marlborough; he thinks that he palliates William in his narrative of the massacre of Glencoe; he thinks that he speaks with too great bitterness of the Highlands, and paints them with a pencil dipped in something like gall and dislike; he thinks that Claverhouse was a hero, while Macaulay looks upon him as a savage; and he winds up with the everlasting criticism on his estimate and strictures on William Penn.

Well, if all this were true, what then? Is Macaulay not a great historian, even if these things be as Mr. Paget pretends they are? Has this critic no soul for liberty, no love of his country, no pride in her contests for popular rights, that he cannot appreciate so noble an offering on the altar of freedom, because in his small researches he has found a date wrong here, or a letter omitted there? It is impossible that a man writing of fifteen years of great events can avoid some casual slips, or be free of some inclination of the scale; but it is a paltry task to de

emy were prepared for it, and Talmash's life was sacrificed, but that Talmash complained that he had been led into it by treachery, and that this treachery was one of the basest of all the hundred villanies of Marlborough. Mr. Paget says, that he accepts "this passage as the battle-ground on which to decide the question how far Lord Macaulay's treatment of evidence entitles him to confidence as an historian." He then says, “The charge may be divided under four heads: :

"I. That Marlborough, making use of sources of information peculiar to himself, discovered the design of the Government to make a descent upon Brest, and revealed it to James, and through him to Louis, who would not otherwise have known it in time to prepare for defence.

II. That the information so communi

cated by Marlborough enabled the French Government to take such steps, and that they did thereupon take such steps, as rendered the expedition abortive.

"III. That Talmash was by these means lured into a snare, and to use Lord Macaulay's words, perished by the basest of all the hundred villanies of Marlborough.'

6

“IV. That Marlborough was thus the real author of the slaughter at Camaret Bay, and the murderer of Talmash; his object being to get rid of Talmash as a personal rival,

and to force himself back into the service of ously and villanously convey to the French the Government and the possession of the important and lucrative places from which he had been discharged two years before. "It is impossible to deepen the shadows of this picture. If it be true, Marlborough was a monster of depravity; if it be false, and if it can be shown that Lord Macaulay had before him the evidence showing its falsehood, we should be sorry to put into plain English what Lord Macaulay must be held to be in the estimation of all honest men.'

[ocr errors]

He then proceeds to a professed examination of the evidence, and sums up by saying:

"It is impossible for any Englishman, it is impossible for any honest man, to rise from a perusal of this attack upon Marlborough and an examination of the evidence upon which it rests, without feelings of the deepest indignation;" and that "Lord Macaulay is beyond comparison the greatest master of brilliant and unscrupulous historical fiction that ever adorned the language of England."

Government information in regard to the attack, because the French Government might previously have had information from other quarters. If the question be in regard to the character of Marlborough, if the question relate to an attack upon that character, what could be more base, or what better foundation could there be for the remark of Macaulay that he only added one to his hundred

villanies?

Mr. Paget writes as if Macaulay were the first historian who had taken this view of Marlborough's character, and in particular as if he, for the first time, invented this charge, which no honest man can rise from reading without indignation. But the truth is, although Mr. Paget seems to know nothing of it, neither the general estimate nor the particular charge are in any respect new. We do not mean to say that Macaulay may not take an exaggerated view of the defects of Marlborough's character, or may not have painted these defects in somewhat glaring colors. We find even in this volume that the tone in which Marlborough is mentioned is considerably subdued. But is Macaulay the inventor of this estimate of the great general? We do not, indeed, refer to the assaults which were made on him by his enemies. Swift said of him,“Come hither, all ye empty things,

Well, these are very strong, very foolish, and very unpardonable words; they, at all events, require strong facts to warrant them. And what do our readers think is the foundation on which so sweeping and so presumptuous a censure is founded? Does Mr. Paget deny that Marlborough betrayed the intended attack to the French Government? Not at all. Does he deny that Talmash thought he had been betrayed? Not in the Ye bubbles raised by breath of kings; least. He admits that Marlborough acted Let pride be taught by this rebuke How very mean a thing's a duke, the traitor, that he informed the French From all his ill-got honors flung, Government of the design, that the attack Turned to that dirt from whence he sprung." was made when the enemy were better pre- This, indeed, was satire, envenomed by pared than was anticipated, and that Talmash in consequence received his death-political and personal animosity. But Mr. wound, and attributed his defeat to treachery; but he says others were as great traitors as Marlborough, and that Godolphin had, prior to the date of Marlborough's letter, conveyed the same information to the French Govern

ment.

Paget seems not to know that from a far more trustworthy source than the satires of Swift, the same character of Marlborough and the same view of his conduct on this very matter were given to the public many years ago in the calm and judicial pages of Hallam. In a note to the fifteenth chapter of his "Constitutional History" occurs the following passage:

We do not see that the attack upon Marlborough was in any degree undeserved, supposing all this to be true. We do not feel the deepest indignation at Lord Macaulay. "As for Lord Marlborough, he was We feel the deepest indignation at his shal- among the first, if we except some Scot low critic. We think every word that Ma- renegades, who abandoned the cause of the Revolution. He had so signally broken caulay said was thoroughly justified. Marl- the ties of personal gratitude in his deserborough was not the less a traitor because tion of the king on that occasion, that, acGodolphin had betrayed his master before; cording to the severe remark of Hume, his Marlborough did not the less most treacher- conduct required forever afterwards the

most upright, the most disinterested, and most public-spirited behavior to render it justifiable. What then must we think of it if we find in the whole of this great man's political life nothing but ambition and rapacity in his motives, nothing but treachery and intrigue in his means! He betrayed and abandoned James, because he could not rise in his favor without a sacrifice that he did not care to make; he abandoned William and betrayed England, because some obstacles stood yet in the way of his ambition. I do not mean only, when I say that he betrayed England, that he was ready to lay her independence and liberty at the feet of James II. and Louis XIV.; but that in one memorable instance he communicated to the Court of St. Germains, and through that to the Court of Versailles, the secret of an expedition against Brest, which failed in consequence, with the loss of the commander and 800 men. (Dalrymyle iii. 13. Life of James, 522. Macpherson, i. 487.) In short, his whole life was such a picture of meanness and treachery that one must rate military services very high indeed to preserve any esteem for his memory."

It would be quite enough, to prove the extravagance of this attack on Macaulay, to show that it is one equally applicable to Hallam. If Macaulay has falsified history on this subject, so has Hallam; and the same plain English which Mr. Paget refrains from printing about Macaulay, would be quite as justly insinuated about Hallam.

But, as might be expected, no one is wrong, or even went wrong about this matter, excepting Mr. Paget himself. He expends a great deal of research in proving that in the spring of 1694 Lord Godolphin had betrayed to the French Government the design of William to make a naval descent on Brest that the French Court knew this from Godolphin before the date of Marlborough's letter, and that William himself knew that he had been betrayed. All this is quite true, and quite notorious: but Lord Macaulay's propositions, even as paraphrased by Mr. Paget, are not the less, one and all of them, accurate. Lord Godolphin's treachery had, in point of fact, no connection with the defeat at Camaret Bay, and the information furnished by Marlborough was entirely new, and entirely the cause of the disaster. This appears quite clearly from the authorities quoted by Hallam.

The first is "Dalrymple's Memoirs of Great Britain" (published in 1788). In the

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

"Marlborough's letter was a strange endeavor, yet natural desire even in the most wicked, to reconcile their profligacy with their duty, in their own eyes and those of This will be a great advantage to Engothers, contained the following words: land. But no advantage can prevent or ever shall prevent me from informing you of all that I believe to be for your service. Therefore you may make your own use of this intelligence, which you may depend upon being exactly true.'"

The Duke of Marlborough's letter, with General Sackfield's letter, in which it was enclosed, are translated in a note, and their tenor is exceedingly important, because they prove beyond all question that the intelligence given by them was recent intelligence, which James did not know, and could not have known otherwise; and they also show that Mr. Paget's idea that Marlborough only gave the information because he knew it would be of no service, is not only a weak, but a most unfounded imagination.

General Sackfield's letter was written in cipher. Mr. Paget innocently says, "Marlborough's letter is not dated, but the compiler of the life of James, and Lord Macaulay himself, concur in assigning the 4th of May as the date." But if Mr. Paget had consulted the original letters as Dalrymple gives them, he would have found that General Sackfield's letter, which enclosed that of Lord

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »