The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

was loose or aweless in act or word; but there was a businesslike habit of proceeding about him which pene trated through all his words and actions, and may have made him as a husband one of the most intolerable that ever vexed and fretted the soul of woman. This is one of the most evasive attempts at explaining a "large historical misconception " that we remember to have met with. What wa s "the absence of reserve " or the " busi- nesslike habit of proceeding" which made him so unpleasant? A king can set the fashion in the first, and we never knew that women particularly disliked the second. Perhaps we do not catch Mr. Froude's mean ing. At all events, it says much for old Mr. Weller's theory that the first lady who was able to cope with these little peculiarities should have been a widow, Catharine Parr, the relict of Lord Latimer. THE PRESS, MARCH 20, 1858. we are sorry to add that snob offences are on the increase. Southey predicted that " cheap literature " would " beat good literature out " of the market," end if society does not take care, that prediction will prove true. The question at issue is, whether a man has a right to boil down another man's dish into a soup of his own—spice it a little, and throw in a vegetable or two—and sell it as a fair article of trade ? We think we know in what way such a question will be answered by the re spectable and intelligent part of the public. Mr. Grant's excuse will probably be that he thinks himselfa better writer than Mr. Napier, and that his book, as cheaper, will perhaps sell more. But, waiving the modesty and the morals of this defence, we humbly venture to deny the first of these propositions and to pooh-pooh the second. Mr. Napier is a vigo rous and picturesque writer, and with a dash of sarcastic humour in him which we do not find that Mr. Grant has borrowed while bor rowing his information. We have faults to find with Mr. Napier, too. He is sometimes so homely and familiar as to be almost rude. He totally neglects that most necessary in strument, the file. He is savage against poli tical opponents to a degree that perhaps im pairs his vision, and certainly damages his taste. Whether he will amend these faults in " The Life of Dundee," which he has an nounced (and which we suppose will be fol lowed in a year or two by the " Dundee " of Mr. Grant), we cannot say. We hope he will But, with unquestionable faults, he has equally unquestionable merits. He has vigour and earnestness. He loves his hero. He honours the old flays, and has the pluck to fight for ancient principles and ideas. Mr. Grant's style is not original nor remarkable ; it does not want a certain amount of pictorial power, but is by no means very conspicuous for it. He does not handle his Jacobite principles with that pith and power without which they only provoke pity or contempt in our day. In a word, he is a cleverish writer at beat. The element most peculiar to himself is the intro duction of a Celtic view of things every now and then—pardonable enough, but which has lamentably misled the English in their notions about Scotland. He still holds the idea that the Union impoverished Scotland—at which all sensible Scots now laugh. He attacks the landlords of the Highlands for the Gaelic emi gration, and never allows for the effect of trade and social change—the operation of which on the Highlands Dr. Johnson saw and admirably explained. This shallowness of thought, com biped with a constant attempt at the pictu resque in style, gives his book a truly Celtic character—a character like that of the High land garb, of which the two chief features are bright colours and nakedness ! Serious readers of history will of course continue to use Mr. Napier's " Memoirs " as the standard Life of Montrose, and (though Mr. Grant ignores their existence) will re member the good character given of them by Lord Stanhope in the Quarterly, by Fraser, and other periodicals. In case, however, they are curious in literary history, it may amuse them to turn over the works of both biogra phers together. They will there find that for . 1 Spalding" and " Guthry " Mr. Grant might in several cases just have put " Napier" at once; that his account of the very interesting portrait of Montrose when young (which Napier discovered in the possession of the Carnegies erroneously passing for a Carnegie) is borrowed wholesale, almost, from the pre vious biographer ; and that otherwise he fol lows in his wake as faithfully as a shark. Of course, Mr. Grant must omit a great deal, but still in his smaller space he contrives to make room for extraneous matter—odds and ends— often of a military character—the shreds and parings of other jobs of work—which fill up space that might have been better occupied. Is it art that induces him to make a blunder which though made in one of the earlier books by Napier is corrected from new authority in his last one—the blunder, namely, by which Lady Montrose was made to die when her husband was only twenty-one, instead of many years afterwards ? Mr. Grant gives this error a chapter to itself, probably under the impres sion that if he put in a good mistake with due prominence, everybody would conclude that (To be continued.) Memoirs of James, Marquis of Montrose, K.G., Captain-General of Scotland. By James Grant, Author of " The Romance of War." London : Routledge and Co. WE are rather puzzled to know for what class of readers this compilation is intended. We are told in the preface that " many memoirs " of Montrose have appeared, but none that " were much known, especially in England, " or were within the reach of the million." It is perfectly true that " memoirs " have ap peared—memoirs without the aid of which we suspect this volume would never have seen the light. These memoirs were by Mr. Mark Napier, and are perfectly familiar to all who have any pretensions to speak of Montrose's epoch. Mr. Grant's book will no more super sede them than it will supersede any other standard work. But will it then suit what in a cant phrase is called the " million" ? This can scarcely be expected, for times are not very flourishing, and the price of the work is six shillings. We suspect that it will hit nobody's desires except those of that class which least deserves encouragement the class of readers too lazy or too stingy to buy good and copious works, but always ready, at a reasonable expenditure, to get tolerably light reading embodying superficial informa tion. Whatever honour is to be acquired on these grounds Mr. Grant deserves, and what ever profit his publishers may as creditably share with him. The truth is, that Mr. Grant has treated Mr. Mark Napier very ill, and we shall point out how he has done so, and why it ought to be exposed, even at the risk of seeming to make a book like that before us of too much impor tance. Mr. Napier has been I suTi l p set: Tiiiihaxor of Montrose's fame. That great noble —coldly treated by Clarendon and meanly treated by Burnet—has in modern times been abused by the Whig historians and neglected by the public. Some twenty years ago he was as little generally known as the Elgin marbles were in the days when Athens was under a pacha. Mr. Napier commenced a thorough investigation of his life—pursued it, not only in the old contemporary literature, but in the MSS. of the Advocates' Library and the char ter-chests of great Scottish families—brought to light forgotten deeds, letters, and even por traits—and has embodied his discoveries in four distinct publications. The last of these (1856) bore the very same title as Mr. Grant's present performance, and yet that writer now totally ignores that work—freely employs his predecessor's materials, but never gives the slightest hint that he too had written Mon trose's biography ! One would think that Mr. Napier —whose name is once or twice casually mentioned—had indeed (like an honest drudge) accumulated raw materials, but that Mr. Grant had used the privilege of a genius to create a good biography out of it for the first time. Row encouraging to private gentlemen of posi tion, who spend time and risk money on lite rary labour, to find the fruit carried off as soon as it is pleasantly ripe ! The Napiers were nearly connected with Montrose, and it is honourable to them to protect his renown ; but it is hard that a gentleman should have his pocket picked while watching over an an cestor's monument. What the law may say to this we do not pretend to guess, but we know what men of letters ought to say. And he was writing from his own resources. Other instances cf the same kind could be adduced. We shall doubtless find some worthier op portunity of discussing the great Scottish Cavalier at length than any that a book like the present can afford. But we cannot part from the hero, even on an occasion when curru servus partatur eodem, without a few words of, we hope, suggestive remark on his career. In the first place, it is curious that in the most Puritan of the two countries the greatest Cavalier should have been produced. Presby terianism is fundamentally Radical in its ten dencies; and what a generous soul must that man have had who, born a Presbyterian noble, in that age could leave the hopeful for the des perate cause, and that without the personal attraction having been brought to bear on him which has so often won over men of generous sentiment ! The change which has been ob jected to Montrose is precisely what proves him to have been conscientiously excellent. He was for the " Covenant " when it only meant Scottish nationality of faith. He was against the " Solemn League and Covenant " when it showed itself to carry in its bosom political and social revolution. He changed just when a low fellow would have become more bigoted ; left the Kirk militant, not, like a rat, when he thought it sinking, but like an eagle when ho thought the air too foul to breathe. Had he used his great talents and great name for mere personal advantage, what might he not have been ? Had he intrigued like the false Hamilton, or the still falser, darker, and meaner Argyle, what was not open to his ambition ? But he risked everything for the King ; raised armies where no man else would have looked for them ; poured over Scotland like a torrent,—winning victories with blows like thunderbolts, and making marches through regions considered at all times impenetrable, in seasons when the thought of a Highland mountain makes the blood almost freeze. For a parallel to his mere exploits we must go to the most wonder ful campaigns in ,his tory. But, along with all this, no man of his age was a more thorough gentleman in the best sense—accomplished, wise, graceful, lettered. His presence was a sort of inspiration, and the air and manner of the man produced a ilatural belief in his capability for greatness. This completeness of character within and without—this perfect correspondence of body and soul—is one of the surest marks not only of a great man, but of one who comes from a fine race. It is a feudal characteristic especially, and therefore peculiarly becoming in the Chief of the Gra hams. And nothing else can explain the fact that, with a Presbyterian Church and an im mense modern development cf trade,* the Scottish people should still look so kindly and reverently on ideas of blood and race, but this production of such men as Montrose by their ancient aristocracy. He fell as others fell, and failed as others fail ; but he neither fell nor failed in vain. Many who disapproved his principles have yet profited by his example : and there are sound Presbyterians who know in their most reflective hour that that cause must have had something nobler in it than bigots fancy, which could be the inspiration of such a life and such a death. Seaside Studies at Ilfracombe, Tenby, the Scilly Isles, and Jersey. By George Henry Lewes. London : Blackwoods. As we are unfortunately to be ranked among those benighted individuals who do not know the difference between a ga.steropodus mol lusc and a compound ascidian, we have been able to derive only a moderate degree of plea sure from the perusal of the present volume. But it is saying a great deal for Mr. Lewes that he has been able to display any vivacity at all on such a subject. He moves easily among his hard names, and handles his slimy booty with as much tenderness as a ratcateher does a ferret; rattling on all the time with an odd kind of humour, half-affected, half-natural, as if to try one's confidence in him. Of the substantial merits cf his work there are various opinions. Some say it is too instructive to be amusing; others, that it is too amusing to immliFll t