The Press. — London, England, 1855-02-03 00:00:00

112 yittratart. A History of England during the Reign of George the Third. By W. Massey, MP. Vol. I. 170-1770. Loudon : J. W. Parker and Son. Tirouort on the titlepage it is intimated that this volume embraces the period from 1745 to 1770, it in reality relates the events only of the first ten years of the reign of George 111. — from 1760 to 1770. The brief notice of the last fifteen years of George 11. is purely of an introductory character. It is truly stated by Mr. Massey that by the recent publication of authentic documents we are placed in possession of a great mass of information illustrative of the reign of George 111. But it is to be observed that those pub lications relate chiefly to the events comprised in this volume—the first ten years of his reign. The political personages who figured most prominently in that period were Mr. Grenville, Lord Bute, Lord Chatham, Lord Rockingham, the Duke of Bedford, and Lord Temple. The Grenville, Chatham, Rocking ham, and Bedford papers have lately been given to the world, and those papers reveal, as far as confidential correspondence, journals, and private memoranda can, the inner thoughts and motives of the statesmen whose papers they comprise, and of their most intimate friends and adherents. The Bute papers itre yet required to complete the series ; and it is to be hoped that they will soon see the light that the nature and extent of the connection between George 111. and Lord Bute, to this day partially in dispute, may be precisely known . The correspondence between George 111. and Lord North, though relating to a somewhat later date, is extremely valuable as throwing light upon the character and policy of the monarch. Mr. Massey holds liberal views, we presume, yet it is evident from his manner of speaking of George 111. that the revelations of the papers we have mentioned have not been without effect on his mind. He speaks harshly in some passages of the King, yet on the whole he gives him credit for shrewdness, good sense, honesty, and resolution. We do not require to be told that his faculties were not of a high order; the want of such faculties can never be imputed as a reproach to any man. In the ordinary transactions of life they are not required, and we have no more right to look for them in a king than in a peasant. The greatest or most successful sovereigns have not usually been distinguished by high intellectual endowments. Those who are called on to rule their fellows must lack or ninst conquer those weaknesses which are attendant on an imaginative intellect. Great rulers have owed their superiority as much to their defects as their virtues. Had they pos sessed greater sensibility they could no more have achieved what they did, than had they possessed less intellect. George 111. has had his worshippers, and some of them have been ready to sign his cer tificate for every endowment and virtue which humanity can possess. But to speak in his case of mental superiority would be absurd. His intellect was limited, but was quite pow erful enough to enable him to attain any object npon which he had set his 'lliad. He had great resolution ; his moral perceptions were clear, and he always acted up to them. The idea of duty is familiar to us now as the one great object of social life, but it was George 111. who, by his example, mainly helped to impress this idea on the mind of the nation. Duty was his one great rule of action; and it may truly be said that he never suffered diffi culty or temptation to warp him in the slightest degree from the standard of what he believed to be right. A personal history of George 111., for which ample materials exist, remains to bo written, and a complete collection of his correspon dence, if the copyright could be arranged, would be acceptable, as of itself furnishing a complete picture of the man. But Mr. Mae- Sq . B history is chiefly parliamentary. It is evenly written, but is destitute of original views, and pretends to no more than to relate occurrences in their order of succession. iiIM•• THE PRESS. In modern history events are so numerous that it requires much skill to determine in what manner they can be most conveniently told. Mr. Massey has attempted something like a classification of subjects. He separates the King's domestic life from political history, but he has not carried the principle far enough. Hansard is a bad model for the modern historian, though an excellent autho rity. Within the compass of twenty pages of this history more than as many subjects are discussed having no connection with the other, except that they happened to come under the notice of Parliament at nearly the same time. Thus rapidly following each other we meet with the headings—" Indian Policy." " State of Ireland," " Exportation of Corn Restricted," " East India Company," " Breach of Parliamentary Etiquette," "Anarchy of the Government," la " Revenue from America," " Chatham taken ill," &c. It is impossible to engage the mind of a reader, or give him a correct idea of any one question, by this frag mentary style of narrative. Oue fault of the work is, that too much importance is attached to mere parliamentary proceedings and their chronological order. There are inconveniences attending the classification and separate treat ment of historical subjects, but the advantages, on a fair view, greatly preponderate. It was by the adoption of this system that Gibbon succeeded in rendering his massive pages so fascinating. If we desire to know the origin and progress of the American war, it is ob viously better that we should find it related succinctly, or divided into periods, than that we should have to hunt out the several inci dents of it in their order of time, mixed up with a vast multiplicity of details which have no kind of connection with them. More is required in a historian than industry in the collection of facts. "A history well divided " and arranged," said Bossuet, "is already " half written." No one should pretend to commence a history who has not maturely considered how the events he has to tell can be best related. Mr. Massey's narrative is generally accurate, though tinged with prejudice against the King, but we notice some remarkable slips. In speaking of the accession of George 111., it is said : The King himself, with a happy recognition of his good fortune, in his speech to the Parliament boasted of his English birth and education, a topic which seemed to re vive in the nation that generous sentiment of loyalty which had remained in abeyance since the expulsion of the lineal race of kings. Every reader of the period knows that the King gloried in being born a Briton, and that this expression, which it was supposed was suggested by Lord Bute, raised a clamour at the time, was seized hold of by Wilks, and was years afterwards made a subject of re proach against the King and Bute in the libels of Junius. Mr. Massey does not seem to have consulted the memoirs of Lord Hardwicke, where all the circumstances connected with this speech are given at length. Amongst the faults of the King is classed his " more than " rpyal forgetfulness of services," though we think it would be extremely difficult to estab lish the charge. It is said that the celebrated remonstrance of the Duke of Beford, which so excessively hurt the King, "was not stronger " than it behoved a Minister of State to em " ploy ;" a strange opinion, when the King was accused of consulting with Lord Bute, after his express denial that he had done so. In noticing the progress of political writing, it is said that, " after Swift, Addison, and Boling " broke, party literature degenerated all at " once from the classic standard, and fell into "the vilest hands ;" yet during the very period embraced by this volume, George Grenville, Burke, and Johnson wrote party pamphlets, and surely the compositions of Junius are not to be despised. The general policy of the King in the early years of his reign is fairly stated in the an nexed paragraph : Chatham still retained the seal of his office, but his administration was now virLually at an end. The King had pUppOrted him from first to last, with a sincerity which none of his fortper Ministers, with the exception of Bute, had ever experienced. His Majesty had, in fact, supported both WA the self-stime principle of restoring the indepen dence of the Crown, which insolent and Sordid factions combined So destroy. Getirge M. sad, from the com mencement of his reign, been intent upon this one object . V SATURDAY, of breaking up and dispersing those connections of the Whig aristocracy which had, for all practical purposes, usurped the prerogative and monopolised the government of the country. In the pursuit of this object he had made many mistakes, sustained many reverses, and much per sonal insult ; but now, after an incessant warfare of six years, it seemed that his perseverance was likely to achieve the success which usually attends that invincible virtue. The Sovereign had succeeded in engaging his greatest subject in his design of emancipating himself from the duress of party. Chatham had every qualification for so difficult an undertaking, and, supported by the public con fidence, soon to be recovered with the vigour of his policy, it is more than probable that he would have succeeded in crushing the cabals which were hardly less odious to the nation than irksome to the Crown. In this desire of the King we have a key to the political struggles of his reign till the accession of Lord North's Ministry, when the royal policy finally triumphed. Had the author, however, attentively read the Rocking ham correspondence, he would have discerned that the King was equally as firm in his sup port of Lord Rockingham as of Bute or Chat ham. As a rule, the - King upheld his Ministry for the time being against all opposition, and no one who has learnt to what a pitch of insolence the domination of the great Whig families had reached previous to 1760 will feel surprised at this policy of the King. George IT. felt his thraldom, but could not escape from it. " I see," said he, on one occasion, to Lord Hard wicke, " that in this country Ministers are the " King,." The great Whig families, to main tain their rule, practised corruption on an enormous scale, and there was great danger that their system would smother public liberty at the same time that it crushed the royal prerogative. The King resolutely set his face against bribery in every shape ; and the change effected in the first ten years of his reign is conspicuous in all the memoirs of the period. The rule by family connection was destroyed before the legitimate action of party com menced. The principal statesmen who bore part in the politics of the early years of George 111. died or retired together. There was no effective resistance to the Ministry of Lord North—opposition was for the time well nigh extinet—and the ascendancy of the King was immediately followed by the most disastrous epoch in our annals—the American war. There was no large mind in the Govern ment to control or to balance the strong will of the King, or to foresee the consequences of his policy. Through the break-up of all poli tical combinations and party ties the Court became absolute, and there can be no question that to this cause, and to the administrative rule of the agents and clerks resulting from it, the country owed all the misfortunes of the fol lowing ten years. The ascendancy of the Court is an object always desired by courtiers and by politicians who have deserted their party, and who are in a true sense, whatever their rank, mere political adventurers, and have no hope of office but from royal favour. But this as cendancy can never be secured in a constitu tional country without destroying the balance and weakening the force of the Government. It overthrew, as M. Thiers, with great political sagacity, foresaw it would, the rule of Louis Philippe. The most inveterate opponent of George 111. must concede that he possessed one great qualification for kingly rule—force of will. Firmness in a good cause is obstinacy in a bad one. The line must needs be narrow, and de pend much on opinion, which makes a virtue or a vice of the same quality, according to its exercise. This strong will has characterised the house of Brunswick from the accession of George I. to the present day, a period of one hundred and forty years, and, on the whole, has been eminently beneficial in its action. A curious contrast might be drawn between the fortunes of this house and that of the Stuarts'. The latter was often distinguished by great talents, fine intellect, by sensibility, ac complishments, and rare personal grace, yet calamity constantly dogged its steps, owing to its almost uniform infirmity of pur hpose. The race of Brunswick, on the contrary , as been coarse in its tastes, sometimes brutal in disposition, destitute of imagination, of learning, of wit, of intellectual refinement in any shape ; but it has possessed strong resolu tion, and, when its mind has been amide up, has been equally insensible to persuasion and to ci