The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-27 00:00:00

;J:ittratiat. History of Europe from the Fall of Napoleon in 1815 to the Accession of Louis Napoleon in 1852. By Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., D.C.L. In Eight Vols. Vol. VII. London : Blackwoods. PREFIXED to this volume is an affiche from the eminent publishers : Messrs. Blackwood beg to intimate that the eighth ♦olume, completing the work, and containing a carefully compiled index, will be published in the course of this year. February, 1858. We were certainly under the impression that the continuation of the history of the French Revolution was to be finished in five and not " eight" volumes. We allow, however, for the growing demands of authorship as it proceeds ; but in proportion as extent of space is claimed, in the same degree do we expect that there shall be condensed fulness of matter and exact correctness of statement. We fear that Sir Archibald Alison has ne glected to seek for special knowledge as he has advanced in his important undertaking " Eight" volumes on a contemporary history ought to contain much curious and rare know ledge If an historian in such a case cannot make any original revelations, at least he may generalise and induct from an immense variety of authentic particulars before the world. The present volume by Sir Archibald Alison ex hibits the characteristic candour of his mind, which has no sinister warp or bias ; but on a great number of interesting passages in our recent history no light is thrown in its pages. We recollect that the late professor Smyth of Cambridge was folid of enunciating the cri tical canon to his u.stss, " When you want "to weigh the merits of a new volume of his " tory, look to the notes." Tried by this test the volume before us is rather deficient, and it falls below the standard setup by the former works of the able and learned author, whose past successes are beyond all dispute. We shall exemplify this opinion presently, but we may make some preliminary remarks on his torical sequels in general. Sir Archibald Alison in his historical effects seems to be an exception to the general rule as applied by critics to historians. In nearly all cases the advanced portions of an historian's works are his best; and several instances, both ancient and modern, could be cited in proof of this position. The earliest portions of Livy's immortal history are not the finest specimens of his masterly power of narrative. As Clarendon advanced in his work, his pen acquired more pliancy in dealing with variety of incident, and even in those " characters which made him a literary Vandyke, the more practice he had the better were his portraits in pen and ink. David Hume wrote his his tory backwards, and the obvious vices of his style are most discernible in the portions first commenced ; while, on the other hand, in Robertson's " History of America" there is a literary force and skill in statement not discernible in the " History of Scotland." In our own time, also, and almost under our own eyes, Guizot, Thiers, and Lamartine in France, and Prescott and Bancroft in America, have improved as they toiled farther in his tory. But Sir Archibald Alison is rather an exceptional case. There was more vivid de scription, and more circumspective care of statement, in his eirrlier than in his later vo lumes. It is possible that the abundance of printed matter for his early portions of his work may have served him, but we fear that he has not taken pains enough to look for knowledge in these latter parts of his pro longed performance. For example, when relating the changes in Sir Robert Peel's policy in 1845-6, Sir Archi bald Alison thus writes : While these Ministerial difficulties and arrangements, big with the future fate of the British empire and of com merce throughout the world, were in progrest in tilt ele vated political regions, the public mind was violently shaken by an announcement, which suddenly appeared in the Times of December 4, to the effect that the repeal of the Corn Laws WWI resolved on in the Cabinet, and that Parliament would be called toc..ther in January to carry the resolution into effect. This statement was imme diately contradicted, iu the moat unqualified manner, by the Mdwiard, and otter Tory aewsyspersi but the Times THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 27,1858. persisted in maintaining it, adding, that the repeal would be moved in the House of Commons by Sir. R. Peel, and in the House of Lurd' by the Duke of Wellington. This excited a very great sensation, the more especially as it was known that the journal in question had very peculiar sources of information, and enjoyed the confidence, either directly or through the intervention of a third party, of more than one member of the Cabinet. Now, there is a most peculiar passage entirely within the scope of a contemporary historian, and Sir A. Alison throws no light on it. His authorities cited in the margin are 'the Times, the Annual Register, and Miss Martineau's " History of the Peace "! Sir A. Alison does not appear to know that other journals besides the Times "had very peculiar sources of infor m ition," and that on many other points in dispute at that period those journals had been as well, if not better, informed than the dis tinguished journal in question. Surely readers of a "popular" history in "eight" volumes would like some light on so curious a subject. " Was it," they might he supposed to ask, " from a Cabinet Minister, or a foreign " ambassador, or a first clerk at an embassy, " that this knowledge was got, or was it " but we shall not specify the interrogatories of legitimate inquisitiveness which might be made by the readers of this work. It is not our business as reviewers to clear up what Sir A. Alison has left in darkness. His account, also, of Sir R. Peel in the opening passages of this volume is tedious and tautologous. Several eminent pens and eloquent tongues have attempted to describe Sir R. Peel, amongst which we may mention M. Guizot's biography, Mr. Disraeli's brilliant characterisation in the " Life of Lord G. Bentinck," Count Cavour's celebrated speech in the Piedmont Parliament, and some notable and elaborate essays on Sir R. Peel in various periodicals Sir A. Alison's views of Sir R. Peel's character are threadbare and obvious, and they want closeness. He says : In private life, Sir Robert's character was altogether unexceptionable. Inheriting from his father, the first baronet, who made the fortune, immense wealth, he made a noble use of it. Simple and utiostentatimu in his habits, his tastes were refined, and he expended largely in the encouragement of the arts which elevate the mind and purify the taste. A kind and affectionate husband, a liberal father. he never deviated from correctness either in oonduct or decorum, and his bitterest political enemies ( and no man latterly hail more) were unable to find one blot in his escutcheon, so far as domestic relations were concerned. Sir R. Peel loved the pomp and splendour of wealth, as shown in his large picture gal leries, and his constant receptions. He liked, also, to have many young noblemen about him. We do not blame him in the least for such tastes, but they were not devoid of " ostenta tion," and traits of character should be pre served. On the opposite page Sir A. Alison quotes from M. Guizot Hors de la maison, entre le proprietaire et la population environnante, une grande distance, marquee dans les maniere', raids comblee par des rat:ports frequents, pleins d'equite et de bienveillance de la part de superieur, sans apparence d'envie ni de servilite cbcz les inferieure. This statement by M. Guizot does not agree with the absence of "ostentation," as stated by Sir A. Alison, and in many other particulars the able writer shows that he had not close knowledge of Sir R. Peel. The " first baronet" had certainly an " immense" fortune, but that was divided amongst several children. The great statesman inherited an extremely large fortune, but it was scarcely shat would be called "immense." We shall not comment on the loose writing of " finding a blot in an "escutcheon, as far as domestic relations were " concerned." We have read better and more brilliant descriptions of Sir It. Peel than that here before us. Sir A. Alison on the breaking up of parties says : It is remarkable that the breaking up of the two great parties which have alternately ruled the State ever since the Revolution was in neither case owing to the hostility of its opponent, ho.vever ably directel or perseveringly applied. It was neither Mr. Pitt nor Lord Castlereagh that overturned the Whigs ; it was not Mr. Fox or Mr. Burke that paralysed the Tories. From the assaults of those great men, strongly supported as they were, their opponents on both sides entirely recovered, and they never were so powerful as after those periods when the strife had been most violent. Witness Mr. Pitt in 1784, after the desperate struggle with the Coalition ; Earl Grey in 183'2, after the close of the long•continued strife consequent on the French Revolution. Even the Reform Bill, how. ever skilfully directed to that end, did not destroy the Tory party ; the Opposition was never so united or so ably led as from 1835 to 1841 when gu id e d b y Sir R. Pe e l the Government never so powerful as w h en he came into power in the close of the latter year. The Whigi as a party were destroyed by the Reform Bill, forced th rough the Lords by their powerful leaders at . the head of t h e whole democracy of the empire ; the Tories as a party were de. stroyed by Sir R. Peel, when at the head of the Govern. ment, and supported by a majority so large a s promised them a lease of power for an unlimited period. Earl Grey's triumph terminated the ascendancy of the old Whi g families which had so long ruled the State, and substituted in its room that of a coalition of English urban Liberals Scotch Radicals, and Irish Catholics; Sir R. Peel's return to power with a majority of ninety-one was the h erald of the dissolution of the great and united party which he had so long and ably headed, and its severance into angry soured Protectionists, too weak to form a G overnmen% and wavering Liberal Conservatives, eminent in talent, but without followers sufficient to give them any preten sions to be a ruling party. All that statement would require caution in adopting it The whole truth is not there. The assertion that " the Whigs as a party " were destroyed by the Reform Bill," is loose and broad. Would it not be more true to say that the attacks of the Liberals on the Church Establishment, and their disastrous and un patriotic junction with Mr. O'Connell, con tributed to sink them, in spite of the in creased electoral aid which they had obtained by the Reform Bill ? In the face of patent facts it cannot be admitted that " with Earl " Grey's triumph the ascendancy of the old " Whig families" terminated. In a former volume of this:sequel we read of the character of O'Connell pronounced upon (as we thought) finally, but here again we have an account of the " Monster Meetings " of 1843 ; and there is an appearance of repeti tion in some passages of this continuation, and in too many instances there is extreme looseness of assertion. It is stated, for ex ' ample, at p. 16, that " Lord Stanley (Derby), " notwithstanding his great abilities, was not " peculiarly versed in colonial affairs." In Mr Canning's Ministry Lord Derby (then Mr. Stanley) was Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and the late Right Hon. R. L. Sheil (a bitter adversary of Lord Derby) says, "He (Mr. " Stanley) held a situation in the Colonial " office, where he was remarkable for diligence, " ability, and self-reliance," &c. &c. (Sheil's " Parliamentary Sketches," vol. ii. p. 362. And Sir A. Alison forgets that when Lord Derby left the Irish Secretaryship in 1833, the Government of Earl Grey and Lord Brougham advised the Crown to appoint Mr. Stanley (Lord Derby) to the Secretaryship of the Colonies, which he held until 1834. The adversaries of Lord Derby might have objected to the noble lord's views on colonial affairs, but we never recollect any man of mark before asserting that Lord Derby was not peculiarly conversant with colonial affairs. He had been twice in the Colonial Department previously to his acceptance of its seals in 1841, and at the time when Mr. Sheil admitted his "diligence" that caustic critic was in parliamentary an tagonism to Mr. Stanley. Surely Sir A. Alison ought to be more careful in his statements. Alluding to an extraordinary religious leader, Father Mathew, Sir A. Alison writes:— The temperance movement began. Father Mathew, a monk of ardent disposition, nervous eloquence, and enthu siastic philanthropy, was the soul of the movement. The benevolent ecclesiastic wee the unsuspecting hand by which the Catholic hierarchy carried on their projects of converting the surplus funds of Irish labour to the purposes of Repeal agitation. The effect of his heart stirring eloquence was at first prodigious; it recalled the days when Peter the Hermit roused the dormant energies of Europe in behalf of the Holy Land. Father Mathew was a friar, not " a monk ;" he did not lay claim to " nervous eloquence," though he had a most touching manner. And we should like to have the authority cited for the statement that the Irish Romanist •` hierarchy appropriated the surplus funds of " Irish labour to the Repeal movement." The comparison of teetotalism with the efforts of Peter the Hermit is absurd. The trial of Smith O'Brien for High Treason is inaccurately recorded by Sir A. Alison. It is said (p. 379) that " Chief Justice Doherty pre sided." There were three judges—ChiefJustice Blackburne (whose office was highest in rank), Chief Justice Doherty (of the Common Pleas), and Mr. Justice Moore. Then, at p. 380, Sir Archibald says, "Meagher was tried at Dub " lin (!) by Chief Justice Blackmore" (!)• !Meagher was tried at Clonmel by the same court which condemned We confederates awl 208