the work ultimately extended to seven volumes, of which a second edition has since been published. The period of seventy years thus copiously treated had been included in' Smollett's hasty, voluminous History, but the ground was certainly not pre-occupied. Great additional information had also been accumulated in Coxe's Lives of Marlborough and Walpole, Lord Hervey's Memoirs of the Court of George II., the Stuart Papers, the Suffolk and Hardwicke Correspondence, and numerous other sources. In the early portion of his work -the Queen Anne period-there is a strong and abiding interest derived from the great names engaged in the political struggles of the 'day, and the nearly equal strength of the parties. Lord Mahon thus sketches the contending factions:

Whig and Tory in the Reign of Queen Anne.

At that period the two great contending parties were distinguished, as at present, by the nicknames of Whig and Tory. But it is very remarkable that in Queen Anne's reign the relative meaning of these terms was not only different but opposite to that which they bore at the accession of William IV. In theory, indeed, the main principle of each continues the same. The leading principle of the Tories is the dread of popular licentiousness. The leading principle of the Whigs is the dread of royal encroachment. It may, thence, perhaps, be deduced that good and wise men would attach themselves either to the Whig or to the Tory party, according as there seemed to be the greater danger at that particular period from despotism or from democracy. The same person who would have been a Whig in 1712 would have been a Tory in 1830. For, on examination, it will be found that, in nearly all particulars, a modern Tory resembles a Whig of Queen Anne's reign, and a Tory of Queen Anne's reign a modern Whig.

First as to the Tories. The Tories of Queen Anne's reign pursued a most unceasing opposition to a just and glorious war against France. They treated the great general of the age as their peculiar adversary. To our recent enemies, the French, their policy was supple and crouching. They had an indifference, or even an aver sion, to our old allies the Dutch; they had a political leaning towards the Roman Catholics at home; they were supported by the Roman Catholics in their elections; they had a love of triennial parliaments, in preference to septennial; they attempted to abolish the protecting duties and restrictions of commerce; they wished to favour our trade with France at the expense of our trade with Portugal; they were supported by a faction whose war-cry was Repeal of the Union.' in a sister-kingdom. To serve a temporary purpose in the House of Lords, they had recourse-for the first time in our annals-to a large and overwhelming creation of peers. Like the Whigs in May 1831, they chose the moment of the highest popular passion and excitement to dissolve the House of Commons, hoping to avail themselves of a short-lived cry for the purpose of permanent delusion. The Whigs of Queen Anne's time, on the other hand, supported that splendid war which led to such victories as Ramillies and Blenheim. They had for a leader the great man who gained those victories; they advocated the old principles of trade; they prolonged the duration of parliaments; they took their stand on the principles of the Revolution of 1688; they raised the cry of No Popery;' they loudly inveighed against the subserviency to France, the desertion of our old allies, the outrage wrought upon the peers, the deceptions practised upon the sovereign, and the other measures of the Tory administration. Such were the Tories, and such were the Whigs of Queen Anne.

We give a specimen of the noble historian's character-painting:

Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender.

Charles Edward Stuart is one of those characters that cannot be portrayed at a single sketch, but have so greatly altered, as to require a new delineation at different periods. View him in his later years, and we behold the ruins of intemperance-as

wasted but not as venerable as those of time; we find him in his anticipated age a besotted drunkard, a peevish husband, a tyrannical master-his understanding debased, and his temper soured. But not such was the Charles Stuart of 1745. Not such was the galant Prince full of youth, of hope, of courage, who, landing with seven men in the wilds of Moidart, could rally a kingdom round his banner, and scatter his foes before him at Preston and at Falkirk. Not such was the gay and courtly host of Holyrood. Not such was he, whose endurance of fatigue and eagerness for battle shone pre-eminent, even amongst Highland chiefs; while tairer critics proclaimed him the most winning in conversation, the most graceful in the dance! Can we think lowly of one who could acquire such unbounded popularity in so few months, and over so noble a nation as the Scots; who could so deeply stamp his image on their hearts that, even thirty or forty years after his departure, his name, as we are told, always awakened the most ardent praises from all who had known him-the most rugged hearts were seen to melt at his remembrance-and tears to steal down the furrowed cheeks of the veteran ? Let us, then, without denying the faults of his character, or extenuating the degradation of his age, do justice to the lustre of his manhood.

The person of Charles-I begin with this for the sake of female readers-was tall and well formed; his limbs athletic and active. He excelled in all manly exercises, and was inured to every kind of toil, especially long marches on foot, having applied himself to field-sports in Italy, and become an excellent walker. His face was strikingly handsome, of a perfect oval and a fair complexion; his eyes light-blue; his features high and noble. Contrary to the custom of the time, which prescribed perukes, his own fair hair usually fell in long ringlets on his neck. This goodly person was enhanced by his graceful manners; frequently condescending to the most familiar kindness, yet always shielded by a regal dignity, he had a peculiar talent to please and to persuade, and never failed to adapt his conversation to the taste or to the sta tion of those whom he addressed. Yet he owed nothing to his education: it had been intrusted to Sir Thomas Sheridan, an Irish Roman Catholic, who has not egcaped the suspicion of being in the pay of the British government, and at their insti. gation betraying his duty as a teacher. I am bonad to say that, I have found 10 corroboration of so foul a charge. Sheridan appears to me to have lived and died a man of honour; but history can only acquit him of base perfidy by accusing him of gross neglect. He had certainly left his pupil uninstructed in the most common tloments of knowledge. Charles's letters, which I have seen amongst the Stuart Papers, are written in a large, rude, rambling hand like a school-boy's. In spelling, they are still more deficient. With himhumour,' for example, becomes UMER; the weapon he knew so well how to wield. is a SORD; and even his own father's name appears under the alias of GEMS. Nor are these errors confined to a single langnage: who, to give another instance from his French-would recognize a hunting knife in coorO DE CHAS? I can, therefore, readily believe that. as Dr. King assures us, he knew very little of the history or constitution of England But the letters of Charles, while they prove his want of education, no less clearly display his naturel powers, great energy of character, and great warmth of heart. Writing confidenti ally, just before he sailed for Scotland, he says: 1 made my devotions on Penterost Day, recommending myself particularly to the Almighty on this occasion to quide and direct me, and to continue to me always the same sentiments, which are rather to suffer anything than fait in any of my duties.' His young brother. Henry of York, is mentioned with the utmost tenderness; and, though on his return from Scotland, he conceived that he had reason to complain of Henry's coldness and reserve, the fault is lightly touched upon, and Cha les observes that, whatever may be his brother's want of kindness, it shall never diminish his own. To his father ale tone is both affectionate and dutiful: he frequently acknowledges his goodness; and when, at the outset of his great enterprise of 1745, he entreats a blessing from the pope, surely the sternest Romanist might forgive him for adding, that he shall think a blessing from his parent more precious and more holy still. As to his friends and partisans, Prince Charles has been often accused of not being sufficiently moved by their sufferings, or grateful for their services. Bred up amidst monks and bigots, who seemed far less afraid of his remaining excluded from power, than that on gaining he should use it liberally, he had been taught the highest notions of prerogafive and hereditary right. From thence he might infer that those who served him in Scotland did no more than their duty; were merely fulfilling a plain social

obligation; and were not, therefore, entitled to any very especial praise and admiration. Yet, on the other hand, we must remember how prone are all exiles to exaggerate their own desert. to think no rewards sufficient for it, and to complaia of neglect even where none really exists; and moreover that, in point of fact, many passages from Charles's most familiar correspondence might be adduced to shew a watchful and affectionate care for his adherents. As a very young men, be determined that he would sooner submit to personal privation than en barrass his friends by contracting debts. On returning from Scotland, he told the French minister. D'Argenson, that he would never ask anything for himself, but was ready to go down on his knees to obtain favours for his brother-exiles. Once, after lamenting some divisions and misconduct amongst his servants, he declares that, nevertheless, an honest man is so highly to be prized that, unless your majesty orders ne. I should part with them with a sore heart Nay, more, as it appears to me, this warm feeling of Charles for his unfortunate friends survived almost alone, when, in his decline of life. nearly every other noble quality had been dimmed and defaced from his mind. In 1783, Mr. Greathead, a personal friend of Mr. Fox. succeeded in obtaining an interview with him at Rome. Being alone with him for some time, the English traveller studiously led the conversation to his enterprise in Scotland. The Prince shewed some reluctance to enter upon the subject, and seemed to suffer much pain at the remembrance; but Mr. Greathead with more of curiosity than of discretion, still persevered. At length, then, the Prince appeared to shake off the load which oppressed him; his eye brightened, his face assumed unwonted animation; and he began the narrative of his Scottish campaigns with a vehement energy of manner, recounting his marches, his battles, his victories, and his defeat; his hairbreadth (scapes, and the inviolable and devoted attachment to his Highland followers, and at length proceeding to the dreadful penalties which so many of them had subsequently undergone But the recital of their sufferings appeared to wound him far more deeply than his own; then, and not till then, his fortitude forsook him, his voice faltered, his eye became fixed, and he fell to the floor in convulsions. At the noise, in rushed the Duchess of Albany, bis illegit mate daughter, who happened to be in the next apartment. 'Sir,' she exclaimed to Mr. Greatherd, what is this? You must have been speaking to my father about Scotland and the Highlanders? No one dares 10 mention these subjects in his presence.'

Once more, however, let me turn from the last gleams of the expiring flame to the hours of its meridian brightness In estimating the abilities of Prince Charles, I mey first observe that they stood in most direct contrast to his father's. Each excelled in what the other wanted. No man could express himself with more clearness and ek gance than James; it has been said of him that he wrote better than any of those whom he employed; but, on the other hard, his conduct was always deficient in energy and enterprise. Charles, 8 we have seen, was no penman: while in action-in doing what deserves to be written. and not in merely writing what deserves to be read-he stood far superior. He had some experience of war-having, when very young, joined the Spanish army at the siege of Gaeta, and distinguished Lir self on that occasion- and he loved it as the birthrightloth of a Sobieski and a Stuart. His quick intelligence, his promptness of decision, and his contempt of dauger, are recorded on unquestionable testimony. His talents as a leader probably never rose above the common level; yet, in some cases in Scotland, where he and his in re practised officers differed in opinion, it will, I think, appear that they were wrong and he was right. No knight of the olden time could have a loftier sense of honour; indeed he pushed it to such wild extremes, that it often led him into error and misfortune. Thus he lost the battle of Culloden in a great measure because he disdained to take advantage of the ground, and deemed it more chivalrous to meet the enemy on equal terms Thus, also, his wilful and froward conduct at the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle proceeded from a false point of honour, which he thought involved in it. At other times, again, this generous spirit may deserve unmingled praise: he could never be persuaded or provoked into adopting any harsh measures of retaliation; his extreme lenity to his prisoners, even to such as had attempted his life, was, it seems, a common matter of complaint among his troops; and even when encour agement had been given to his assassination, and a price put upon his head. he conti ned most earnestly to urge that in no possible case should the Elector,' as he called his rival suffer any personal injury or insult. This anxiety was always present in his mind. Mr. Forsyth, r gentleman whose description of Italy is far the best that

has appeared and whose scrupulous accuracy and superior means of information will be acknowledged by all travellers, relates how, only a few years after the Scottish exped tion, Charles, relying on the faith of a single adherent, set out for London in an buable disguis, aud under the name of Smith. On arriving there, he was introunced at midnight into a room full of conspirators whom he had never previously SD. Here,' said his conductor, is the person you want,' and left him locked up in the mysterious ssembly. These were men who imagi.ed themselves equal, at that time, to treat with him for the throne of England. Dispose of me, gentlemen. as you please.' said Charles; my life is in your power, and I therefore can stipulat for nothing. Yet give me. I entreat, one solemn promise, that if your design should succeed, the present family shall be sent safely and honourably home.'

Another quality of Charles's mind was great firmness of resolution which pride and sorrow afterwards hardened into sullen obstinacy. He was likewise at all times prone to gusts and sailies of anger, when his language b came the more peremptory, from a haughty consciousness of his adversities. I have found among his papers a note without direction, but no doubt intended for some tardy officer. It contained only these words: I order you to execute my orders, or else never to come back.' Such harshness might, probably, turn a wavering adherent to the latter alternative. Thus, also, his public expressions of resentment against the court of France, at different periods, were certainly far more just than politic. There seemed always swelling at his heart a proud determination that no man should dare to use him the worse for his evil fortune, and that he should sacrifice anything or everything sooner than his diguity.

This is a portrait of Charles Edward as he appeared in his prime. In a subsequent volume, Lord Stanhope gives a sketch of him in his latter years, part of which we subjoin:

An English lady who was at Rome in 1770 observes: 'The Pretender is naturally above the middle size, but stoops excessively; he appears bloated and red in the face; his countenance heavy and sleepy, which is attributed to his having given into excess of drinking; but, when a young man, he must have been esteemed handsome. His complexion is of the fair tint. his eyes blue, his hair light-brown, and the contour of his face a long oval; he is by no means thin. has a noble person, and a graceful manner. His dress was scarlet, laced with broad gold-lace; he wears the blue riband outside of his coat, from which depends a cameo antique, as large as the paim of my hand; and he wears the same garter and motto as those of the noble Order of St. George in England. Upon the whole, he has a melancholy, mortified app arance. Two gentlemen constantly attend him; they are of Irish extraction, and Roman Catholics you may be sure. At Princess Palestrine's he asked me if I understood the game of tarrochi, which they were about to play at. I answered in the negative: upon which, taking the pack in his hands, he desired to know if I had ever seen such odd cards. I replied that they were very odd indeed. He then, displaying them, said: "Here is everything in the world to be found in these cards-the sun, moon, the stars; and here," says he, throwing me a card, is the pope; here is the devil; and," ad led he, there is but one of the trio wanting, and you know who that should be!" [The Pretender]. i was so amazed, so astonished, though he spoke this last in a laughing, good-humoured manner, that I did not know which way to look; and as to a reply, I made none.'

In his youth, Charles, as we have seen, had formed the resolution of marrying only a Pro estant princess: however, he remained single during the greater part of his career; and when, in 1754, he was urged by his father to take a wife, he replied: The unworthy behaviour of certain ministers, the 10th of December 1748 has put it out of my power to settle anywhere without honour or interest being at stake; and were it even possible for me to find a place of abode, I think our family have had sufferings enough, which will always hinder me to marry, so long as in mi fortune, for that would only conduce to increase misery, or subject any of the family that should have the spirit of their father to b tied neck and heel, rather than yield to a vile ministry. Nevertheless, in 1772, at the age of fifty-two, Charles espoused a Roman Catholic. and a girl of twenty. Princess Louisa of Stolberg. This union proved as unhappy as it was ill assorted. Charles treated his young wife with very little kindness." He appears, in fact, to have cout.acted a disparaging opinion of her

sex in general; and I have found, in a paper of his writing about that period: 'As for men, I have studied thein closely; and were I to live till fourscore. I could scarcely know them better than now; but as for women, I have thought it useless, they being 80 much more wicked and impenetrable.' Ungenerous and ungrateful words! Surely, as he wrote them, the image of Flora Macdonald should have risen in his heart and restrained his pen!

The History of Lord Stanhope, in style and general merit, may rank with Mr. P. F. Tytler's History of Scotland.' The narrative is easy and flowing, and diligence has been exercised in the collection of facts. The noble historian is also author of a History of the War of the Succession in Spain,' one volume, 1832; a 'Life of the Great Prince Conde,' 1845; a Life of Belisarius,' 1848; a volume of Historical Essays,' contributed to the Quarterly Review,' and containing sketches of Joan of Arc, Mary, Queen of Scots, the Marquis of Montrose, Frederick II., &c. His lordship has also edited the Letters of the Earl of Chesterfield,' four volumes, 1845, and was one of the executors of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington. In conjunction with Mr. E. Caldwell, M.P., Lord Stanhope published Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel,' being chiefly an attempted vindication by that statesman of his public conduct as regards Roman Catholic Emancipation and the Corn Laws. His lordship has also published a Life of the Right Hon. William Pitt,' valuable for the correspondence and authentic personal details it contains; and a History of the Reign of Queen Anne until the Peace of Utrecht,' (1701-1713), a work in one volume (1870), which, however inferior, may be considered a continuation of Macauley's History.

Earl Stanhope was born at Walmer in 1805, was educated at Oxford, and was a member of the House of Commons, first for Wooton Bassett, and afterwards for Hertford, from 1830 to 1852. He was for a short time Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Secretary to the Board of Control. He succeeded to the peerage in 1855, and died in 1875.

THOMAS KEIGHTLEY.

A volume of 'Outlines of History' having appeared in 1830 in 'Lardner's Cyclopædia,' Dr. Arnold urged its author, Mr. Thomas Keightley, to write a series of histories of moderate size, which might be used in schools, and prove trustworthy manuals in after-life. Mr. Keightley obeyed the call, and produced a number of historical compilations of merit. His History of England,' two volumes, and the same enlarged in three volumes, is admitted to be the one most free from party-spirit; and his Histories of India, Greece and Rome, each in one volume, may be said to contain the essence of most of what has been written and discovered regarding those countries. Mr. Keightley also produced a History of the War of Independence in Greece,' two volumes, 1830; and The Crusaders,' or scenes, events and characters from the times of the Crusades. These works have all been popular. The 'Outlines' are read in schools, colleges, and uni