Page images
PDF
EPUB

plified, condensed, and rendered perspicuous. This task has, in several important branches of law, been accomplished with such signal success as to silence all mere theoretical reasonings against the plan. Not only have the public witnessed and applauded this advance towards an improved system-Mr. Peel has acted throughout his task with the advice and concurrence of technical lawyers, and the approbation and assistance of the experienced judges of the realm. In the judicious caution which has restrained him from pushing his reforms beyond the point to which they could be accompanied by the concurrence of the practical executors and ministers of the law, he has even stopped short, in some instances, of the extent to which lawyers conceived he might proceed. Well knowing the value of opinion, respecting even the prejudices of habit, and bearing in mind that the success of laws in their practical operation, must ever mainly depend on the acceptation in which they are held by those who put them in force, he has, with a truly statesman-like moderation, consented to waive something of the completion of his own designs, out of deference to those not so far advanced in their views as himself. By this wise caution he has secured the confidence of the public, and, while he has acquired for himself the character not more of an enlightened than of a safe and practical legislator, he has paved the way for an easy accomplishment of further improvements, when time and circumstances render them fitting. We cannot help adding, that the professors of the law, from the judges downwards, have encouraged and aided these reforms in legislation in a spirit which abundantly refutes the sneers which the vulgar sometimes indulge against them, as desiring to check legal improvements from illiberal, and even sordid motives. To those who know them best, it is needless to say that a more enlightened, liberal, and truly generous body-one more incapable of sacrificing really useful objects to selfish considerations-cannot be found; though from an accurate and practical knowledge of the laws of their country, and from the habit of penetrating through false appearances, and detecting sophistries, they may often attach small value to empirical schemes of amendment which, to more superficial and less informed observers, may appear deserving of all patronage. To the practical, well considered, and cautious improvements lately made in the criminal code, Mr. Peel bears testimony that they have, one and all, with whom he communicated, given zealous and disinterested attention, and every co-operation which their knowledge could afford.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

ART. VII.-The Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry VII. to the Death of George II. By Henry Hallam. London. 1827. 2 vols. 4to.

MR.

R. HALLAM tells us that the title which he has adopted appears to exclude all matters not referrible to the state of government, or what is loosely denominated the constitution;' this part of history being, he says, in many respects, most congenial to his own studies and habits of mind. He has generally, therefore, abstained from mentioning, except cursorily, either military or political transactions which do not seem to bear on this primary subject. It must, however,' he proceeds to say, 'be evident that the constitutional and general history of England, at some periods, nearly coincide; and I presume, that a few occasional deviations of this nature will not be deemed unpardonable, especially where they tend, at least indirectly, to illustrate the main topic of inquiry. Nor will the reader, perhaps, be of opinion that I have forgotten my theme in those parts of the following work which relate to the establishment of the English church, and to the proceedings of the state with respect to those who have dissented from it; facts certainly belonging to the history of our constitution in the large sense of the word, and most important in their application to modern times, for which all knowledge of the past is principally

valuable.'

The experiment of separating history into its constituent parts, civil and military, ecclesiastical, constitutional, literary, moral and commercial, was made upon a large scale by the industrious Henry, who thereby established for himself no inconsiderable reputation, notwithstanding the nefarious malignity with which Gilbert Stuart endeavoured to blast the fruit of his labours, ruin him in his fortunes, and break his heart.* As yet, however, Dr. Ranken (in a history of France) has been his only imitator. For the advantages are more specious than solid; and history is in reality rendered more complicated by this scheme for simplifying it. A book so arranged may be convenient for the facilities of reference which it affords; and, therefore, it is well that there should be histories composed upon such a plan. But a narrative, which proceeds according to the course of time and events, and records things as they are intermingled in the multifold concerns of society, is read with more pleasure, and remembered with more profit. The relation of civil and military transactions, of laws, literature, manners,

* Mr. D'Israeli, in his Calamities of Authors, has given a curious account of this 'Literary Hatred, exhibiting a Conspiracy against an Author.' Its materials are derived from Stuart's own letters, who little thought, while he was seeking to destroy the reputation of another, that he was heaping up infamy for himself.

and

and religion, their mutual connexion, their influence and dependence upon each other, are better perceived and comprehended by the historian himself, if he be competent to the task which he undertakes, when he follows the natural order of narration; and things presented in that order appear to the reader in their proper place, and bearings, and proportions.

It would not be obvious what is meant by a Constitutional History, if Mr. Hallam had not, in the preface, explained what he intended by this designation. In common parlance, to call an historical work constitutional, would be analogous to giving the epithet of orthodox to a theological one; it would be understood as implying that the author was attached by principle and feeling to the established institutions of his country; consequently, that the book might be recommended as designed to inculcate safe opinions and sound doctrines relating to church and state. So far as the title may seem to imply this, it is a misnomer. The book is the production of a decided partisan; presenting not the history itself, but what is called the philosophy of history, and to be received with the more suspicion, because it deals in deductions and not in details. There are many ways in which history may be rendered insidious; but there is no other way by which an author can, with so much apparent good faith, mislead his readers. For if he enter into details, he must either relate them faithfully, and in that case, however his own mind may be biassed, the true statement will induce the true conclusions; or, he must misrepresent them, at the hazard of being traced to his authorities, and detected in misrepresentation. This, indeed, is little regarded by those who labour to serve the interests of a party or of a sect, sure as they are of obtaining credit with the faction which is thus served. There is a proverb imputed to the Spaniards, (and not improbably, when we remember the Machiavelian politics of Ferdinand, the Catholic king, and the Austrian dynasty,) that a lie, if it will last half an hour, is worth telling authors' lies last longer. A Frenchman, in the 17th century, published a book, in which he valiantly denied that Francis I. had been taken prisoner by the Spaniards. His very countrymen marvelled at the audacity of this falsehood; but when he was asked how he could venture upon sending such an assertion into the world, he replied, that he had done so advisedly, because in the course of an hundred years his denial of the fact would become sufficient authority for calling it in question, and thus it would be rendered doubtful. He spoke and acted in the gaiety and frankness of his heart for the honour of France; and books are still composed in that country from the same motive upon the same principle. It would be possible to com'pile a history of the Peninsular War from French memoirs, and

0 2

official

official reports to the French Imperial government, by which it should appear that the English were defeated in every action during that war, and that the enemy, after a series of skilful and brilliant operations, concluded their career of success by obtaining a signal victory before Thoulouse.

If the mere spirit of nationality will induce men thus to impose upon the world narrations which they know to be essentially and impudently false, much more may a like effect be expected from religious or factious zeal for men prefer their religion to their country (as they must of necessity do, if they sincerely hold the opinions which they profess); and they prefer their faction to their country also, for the same reason which, in a collision of interests, would make them prefer their own to that of their faction: and as there is no other country in which factions, both civil and religious, have struck such deep roots and sent up their scions so widely as in England, so there is none in which historical transactions have been so perseveringly and systematically falsified; nor has this ever been done more elaborately than in the present times. They who have the worst cause are generally the most alert and indefatigable in promoting it. There is a restless principle of activity in faction, error and wickedness, even as in disease and contagion, -the moral constitution of things resembling in this respect the physical, The falsehoods which are thus propagated, obtain sometimes a long currency; and the false impressions which they make, produce consequences grievously injurious to mankind. The comfortable maxim of our own homely old Georgics, that Time tries the truth in every thing,' fails unhappily in such cases. Systems, indeed, of every kind are brought to the test by time; physical errors are disproved and exploded; and fine-spun theories, political and economical, are demolished as effectually when attempted in practice, as they have been triumphantly demonstrated in lengthy speeches and in wire-drawn volumes. But there are historical falsehoods which are continually kept alive by the evil feelings and intentions (not to say the evil principle) which originally produced them. Generation after generation they are repeated, with a pertinacity which no disappointment relaxes, and with an effrontery which nothing can abash, and which, therefore, is only hardened and exasperated by the infamy of repeated exposures; and thus the work of delusion and mischief, for which they were designed, is carried on through successive centuries and ages. Such, for instance, are the impious fables concerning our Lord and Saviour, which are at this day received among the Jews, and contribute to harden them in their unbelief. Such (to adduce less awful examples) are the calumnies which the Roman Catholics everlastingly repeat against Luther, Calvin,

and

and Beza. Such are the beastly slanders concerning Henry VIII. which are boldly asserted at this time by the more ignorant of that party, and insinuated by the more artful. Such too are those systematic misrepresentations of the conduct, principles, motives, and intentions of the English government in church and state, from the accession of Elizabeth to the Great Rebellion, which furnish matter for so much special pleading and so much common-place declamation on the part of those who are ill-affected toward one branch of the constitution, and not well-affected toward the other.

According to the motto which Horace Walpole has prefixed to one part of his Memoirs, a man cannot rightly fulfil the duties of an historian unless he be a sort of monster which the world never has seen, and never can see: Pour étre bon historien, il ne faudroit étre d'aucune religion, d'aucun païs, d'aucune profession, d'aucun parti.' There is a shallowness in this maxim which could not have deceived Horace Walpole if he had reflected upon the words. Little as his faith may have been, he was far too able a man to suppose that he who is without religion is, therefore, free from prejudice concerning that most momentous of all subjects; or, that the writer who hates all churches, is likely to be more equitable in his judgments, and more candid in his statements, than he who should be bigoted to one. Give but a sane conscience and an upright intention, and the historian will not be unduly biassed either by his religious persuasion, or the love of his country, or his professional predilections. He comes to his task, not like an advocate with the purpose of bringing forward such parts of the case as may favour the side on which he is retained, and of keeping others in the shade; but under the sense of a more serious responsibility, and a higher duty. He will faithfully state the facts which he has carefully collected, and when this is performed with a sound judgment, the best history will be that which contains the fullest details. In direct opposition to the French maxim, it may be affirmed, that an historical writer must necessarily derive advantage from the knowledge of any profession which he may have followed; and for the proof of this, it would be enough to name Xenophon, Polybius, and Cæsar. That he should have a national feeling for his subject is not so directly advantageous, yet it is desirable; and, indeed, so natural is it for men to interest themselves deeply in those pursuits which they have voluntarily undertaken, that they who write the histories of other countries than their own, are generally found, in a certain degree, to naturalize their affections there. For the want of religion there can be no compensation. The more religious an historian is, the more impartial will be his statements, the more

charitable

« PreviousContinue »