sometimes, we venture to think, at the expense of his better judgment.

Thus, to quote an example, he was one of the very few men of real intellectual eminence in Europe who hailed with genuine enthusiasm the French Revolution of 1848, and the proclamation of the ephemeral Republic that followed it. It was happiness to him to live under anything that bore the name of Republic. He described it as a real progress and upheavingin men's feelings, so as to be instructive and important as an 'object of study:' though even then dimly foreseeing the 'numerous chances and possibilities' which have led the French nation from that fatal moment, through every stage of revolution, reaction, tyranny, civil and foreign war, humiliation, and defeat. But these disasters he attributed to the repressive policy and measures of the National Assembly in crushing everything like public liberty and the popular force.' That brought about the coup d'état of 1851 and again in the last months of Mr. Grote's life he witnessed the recurrence of the same cycle of revolution, civil war, and reaction against the excesses of the Commune. It has ever been a maxim of the Westminster school, repeated to satiety by John Stuart Mill, that the excesses and horrors of the French Revolution are attributable to those who resisted the small minority of persons who made the revolution, and that this revolutionary party was justified in resorting to violent measures in self-defence. Strange that men of so much learning and sagacity should not have discovered, that the names and outward forms of government have but little to do with the true spirit of progress and freedom that there may be arbitrary and intolerant republics, serving too often as the pretext for the dominion of some military adventurer, just as there may be free and liberal monarchies, whose stability opposes no barrier to the advancement and improvement of mankind. The civil war between the United States, in 1861, put the faith of the admirers of Republican institutions to a severe test. It proved that the most entire freedom is no pledge of social and domestic peace. Mr. Grote was strongly of opinion that the North had not the right to coerce the Southern States, and to deny their right of separation, by virtue of the terms of the federal compact. In this he differed totally from John Stuart Mill, who discerned, with greater truth, on which side the real interests of freedom lay: but Mr. Grote differed also from the view he had himself taken of the Sonderbund War in Switzerland, in which the Catholic Cantons were vainly contending for the rights of the clerical party. The principle was the same, but the objects of

the struggle were quite different; and we can only conclude that Mr. Grote's choice on these questions was determined more by sympathy than by pure reason.

A sketch of the life of Mr. Grote would be incomplete which contained no reference to the eminent administrative services he rendered to the three boards or bodies with which he was for many years connected-the University College of London, where he caused a gallery to be adorned with the beautiful Marmor Homericum' by Baron Triqueti, which he presented to that institution in memory of his connexion with it from its foundation-the University of London, of which he became Vice-Chancellor and the most active Governorand the British Museum, where he succeeded Mr. Hallam as a Trustee. Never having held any public office, never having received a fraction of public remuneration, or even of public honour, except the offer of a peerage from Mr. Gladstone, which he declined, Mr. Grote was one of those public servants of England, who, without fee or reward, devote a large portion of valuable time and labour to the unrequited service of their countrymen. His admirable habits of business, his tact and courtesy in discussion, and his vast learning, rendered him an invaluable coadjutor in the management of the affairs of learned bodies; and so entirely did he devote himself to their interests, that whereas other men commonly dedicate to such tasks the spare hours of their lives, Mr. Grote made them (after his retirement from the bank) his chief business, and gave them ungrudgingly all that could be taken from the great literary labour of his life. Indeed, the punctilious discharge of every duty which affected the welfare or convenience of others was one of his distinguishing virtues. He had in perfection that highest principle of politeness which proceeds from consideration for other men; and when there was a question of serving those in whom he felt interested, his munificence to his poorer literary brethren and his zealous kindness knew no bounds. Mrs. Grote, with great delicacy and good taste, has scarcely glanced at this part of his personal life; but it is one not to be forgotten by others.

After this brief sketch of the contents and the subject of this volume, we need hardly add that we have read it more than once with the greatest pleasure, and that we feel deeply indebted to Mrs. Grote for the affectionate energy which prompted her, at an advanced age, to undertake and accomplish it. It is written without art and without exaggeration; but every page beams with reality and truth. The large interest it has already awakened in the public to the lives and cha

racters of a secluded circle of scholars and friends, whose habits and pursuits had nothing in them to captivate the world, is a proof of the irresistible attraction of every genuine and natural picture of life and society. We are glad that so simple a picture should be left to posterity and exhibited to foreign nations, of the private and literary life of our own times. There is in it, not the eloquence of Burke, not the rhetoric of Johnson, not the wit of Sheridan, for in the play and light of genius the society of the nineteenth century may be contrasted unfavourably with that which preceded it. Though we have had a Brougham, a Macaulay, and a Sydney Smith-dear especially to our own memory. They too are gone. But there is still a high standard of culture, learning, good sense and sound argument amongst us-a sufficient amount of originality to resist that empire of public opinion, which Mr. Mill regarded as the bane of individual liberty-and a social cohesion, not disturbed by party differences or personal detraction. That is the picture which Mrs. Grote's memoir leaves on the mind. The details are the details of daily life, but nothing in them is trivial or vain; and we think this book deserves not only to be read, but to be remembered, as the record of a most honourable and useful life, which commands the respect and admiration even of those who differed from Mr. Grote in many of his theoretical opinions.

ART. XI.-1. The Indo-Russian Question. By Capt. F. FRENCH, 20th Hussars. London: 1869.

2. Correspondence with Russia respecting Central Asia, presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty. 1873.

IT

T is one of the most singular facts in modern history that two great European empires, stretching their vast dominions in broad bands across Southern and Northern Asia, should find themselves separated-and usefully separated--by the territory of a fierce and free people, which interposes between them a barrier more impassable than the Hindoo Koosh or the Steppe of Pamir. The reception recently given in this country to the Shah of Persia is a conspicuous manifestation of the value the British nation sets upon its Asiatic allies, and of our sincere desire for their prosperity and independence. But Persia herself, with all the traditions of her ancient power and splendour, is not more important to this

country and to India, than the hardy race of warriors who inhabit the valleys and command the passes of Afghanistan. The recent debates which have taken place on what is termed the Central Asian question, all bring us back to the conclusion that Persia and Afghanistan are the outworks of our own possessions, and that we are deeply interested in the maintenance of their native power. From ourselves they have nothing to apprehend, for we are well assured that whoever first attacks and invades them will encounter a formidable enemy. From Russia, we believe, they have little to dread, but they are the objects of Russian intrigue, if not of Russian aggression. Their chief danger lies in their internal weakness, and the difficulty of establishing and maintaining in Afghanistan a strong and settled government. The history of the struggles and revolutions which have harassed that country since the death of Dost Mahommed is long and intricate, and it has not yet been written. We trust that those of our readers who estimate the real importance of these questions, will bear with us if we make a more than ordinary demand on their patience in the following pages. The story we have to relate is very imperfectly known in Europe, but we are in possession of materials of indisputable authority on the subject, and entire reliance may be placed on the accuracy of the following narrative.

About six years have elapsed since a writer, whose premature death shortly afterwards afflicted the world of Indian politics not less than that of letters, first unravelled in our pages the tangled web of Afghan history since the death of Dost Mahommed. He told how Shere Ali, not the eldest son, but the chosen heir of the deceased Ameer, had succeeded for the first year of his reign in quelling the attempts which one brother after another had made to oust him from power: how his faithless act in sending one brother, Ufzul, the eldest by the halfblood, as a state prisoner to Ghuznee had roused fresh attempts against his authority: how another brother by the full-blood, Ameen Khan, had, in a hand-to-hand encounter, killed Shere Ali's eldest son-his pride and delight, being himself killed the next moment: how this loss had plunged Shere Ali into a stupor of melancholy or madness, during which, while he remained inert at Candahar, Cabul was lost through the incapacity of his second son Ibrahim, and the energy of Ufzul's son, Abdool-ruhman, leading down a force from Bokhara and Bulkh, and

*Foreign Policy of Sir John Lawrence,' Edin. Review, vol. cxxv.

P. 17.

joined, as he advanced, by brothers, uncles, and cousins, who flitted restlessly from side to side, till they could make up their mind which was likeliest to enjoy the longest lease of power: how the fall of his capital roused the Ameer from his stupor; and how, after raising a fresh army, advancing past Ghuznee high in hope, and receiving back the allegiance of the fickle tribe of relations and courtiers, who looked to see his cause speedily triumph, he was, by the defection of his Candahares, baulked of that triumph just when the victory seemed to be his. That, for the time, decisive battle was fought at Sheikhabad on May 10th, 1866, nearly three years after Dost Mahommed's death. The story, as told in our pages, went on to show how, while Shere Ali retired to Candahar, declaring his resolution to continue the struggle, but giving his followers free permission to seek a luckier master, Ufzul, released from confinement, betook himself to the capital, and, after the first delights of recovered liberty and acquired dominion, sank back into the sensual enjoyments which had been his solace during two years of prison life, leaving, perhaps because he could not help himself, all power in the hands of his full brother Azim,* than whom perhaps no man in Afghanistan was more qualified to give the new administration a bad name for rapacity, oppression, and cruelty: lastly, how Azim, by every art, endeavoured to entice or frighten Sir J. Lawrence into supporting him; but could only elicit the answer that while, if he was able to consolidate his power in Cabul, and desired to be an ally of England, he would be accepted as such, yet it would be inconsistent with the reputation of the British Government to break off its alliance with Ameer Shere Ali, so long as he retained his authority over a large portion of Afghanistan. The receipt of this letter caused great dismay to Ufzul and Azim, and, when its tenor became generally known, took much from their hold over the people of Cabul, already groaning under their oppressions. It arrived on August 5th, 1866, and the ensuing days were spent in conferences and discussions as to the next step to be taken. Several plans were suggested of avenging the discouraging answer by some act which should damage British interests, or, if this were not possible, by some

Azim is well remembered by many in India, where he sought a temporary asylum in the interval between two of his attempts against Shere Ali-a very tall man, with a slight stoop and particularly harsh countenance, who before he left his shelter manifested a very intense hatred for his shelterers, on account of their niggardliness in contributing only a very moderate allowance for his wants.