The sun., 1908-08-09

oeded that the popularity which Crebbe'G
earlier narrative poems enjoyed was spartly
duo to the dearth Of good fiction prose n
the time In which he wrote. Novels wefs
then Issued from tho press at comparatively
distant intervals and tho reading public
welcomed writer who was able to play on
their emotions with an almost illimitable
series Of stories which, whatsoever else might
be said Of them, went at any rate straight
to the heart. After 1919. however. when
Crabbe's popularity began to decline.
novels were no longer the rare or insipid
productions which with few exceptions
they had been ct the end Of the eighteenth
and beginning Of tho ninetsenth centuries.
We have ssen. nevertheless. what Scott and
Tennysou thought Of Crabbes poems. and
1t is worth remembering that Fitzgerald
mover wearied Of citing passages from the
Tales to show how true q poet was lying
neglected Of men; that Maoaulay alludes to
q passage In the Borough as "lnoompar-
able; that Crabbe was ono Of Cardinal
Newman's favorite authors; that DR.. john
son described the Village" az original.
vigorous and elegant; that Byron In we'll
known line called Orabbs Natures storm
est painter. yet tho best, and that Words
worth IN 1854 said Of Crabbes poems that
they would last, from their combined merits
as poetry and truth. fully az long as any
thing that had been expressed in verso since
they had first made their appearance
III.
OF John Wilson Croker, whom Macaulay
and Thackeray combined TO vilify. Sir
Spencer Walpole thinks that "ss o critic he
had few suneriors.' and he makes him the
subject Of o sympathetic essay some forty
pages In length In which he doss full Justice
to croker's abilities and character. Within
two years after Croker entered Parliament
Prime Minister Peroeval nominated him 70
tho secretaryship Of the Admiralty. an
ofiloe which he continued TO AL under Ave
Premiers for moro than twenty yeaIs. The
ONCE. by tho way, was one OF the most
lucrative which the Minister had at his dis
posal. for the salary had been fixed at $4,000
Q year while the country shos,ld he at war
and ct es,ooo when 1t should be at peaoe.
Sir Spencer docs not say much In his
essay about Lord Yarmouth. who In 1872
became third Marquis Of Hertford CThaok-
eray's Marquis Of Steyne). or OF Mr.. Croher's
with him. He blames Croker for
the tone Of his letters to Lord Hertford and
for meeting without remonstranoe at Lord
Hertford's table company with which he
was ashamed to appear In public. Referring
tn Lord Reaconstisld's portrait Of Rgby.
which Of course In meant for Croker. the
author OF these essays Expresses the opin-
Ion that one part Of Riehy's character was
drawn from the life. Rixby. we are told.
"had become Indispensable TO his lordship
by more serious. II not higher, considera-
tlona. And what with auditing his 90
counts. guarding his boroushs. writing
him Cwhsn absent) gossip by every post
and when in England) deciding on every
question and arranging every matter which
otherwise might have rlfiied the sublime
repose OF his patrons existence Rgty
might he excused II he shrank little from
The minor part Of table wit Such were
some Of the functions which Righy dis
charged for Lord Monmouth, and such. as
Sir spencer Acknowledges. was the nature
of Croker's services to Lord Hortford.
Il will be remembered that Croksr's
sdition Of Boswells Life Of Johnson Was
reviewed by Maoaulay. 'Hus-
banding his wrath for nearly eighteen
years. Croker retaliated BY attacking the
irst two volumes Of Lord Maoaulay's His
;ory.' Sir George Trevelyan has described
Croker's review - $50 bitter, 90 foolish.
md above all 10 tedious, that scarcely
anybody could get through it and nobody
was convinced by it, Sir Spencer con-
,urs in thinking that Croker was incapable
II discussing Nacaulay's theme because
ais knowledge was inadequate. He admits.
n fine, that Croker was neither greet
politician nor great writer. 'His articles
Were no doubt caustio enough. hut his
,tyle was not good; he was as fond Of italics
always implies an incapacity to emphasize
argument by language He occasionally
truck hard. but his blows were the blows
If shillelah rather than of rapier. In
Inc. as Sir Spencer recognized. there 10 q
moral to be drawn from Croker's biography
which must be enforced. In q political
hough not In a personal sense Croker
was an accurate representative Of the old
,lass Of Tories who lived In the days OF the
lrst reform aot and who % vebemently
opposed that measure. His was literally
.he creed which forgotten writer put
nto the mouth Of the Tories:
The dust OF old Sairum Is holy.
In our hearts live her raniparts and towers
No progreas: Improvement Is folly:
The foes Of green Cation are ours.
Nv.
Tho essay In this book on aMme. dc
Iiever' will introduce to the general reader
| lady who 10 known to students OF English
history during the first third OF the last
a. q unique instance Of woman.
he wife OF an Ambassador, Who practically
uperse1ed her husband In his own dutics
md at the same time interfered actively
n the domestic politics OF the country
% which he was accredited. There is no
louht that Dorothea, Princess Lieven. was
he mainsprlng Of the Russian Embassy
n London during the regency and reign
II George Nv and for the first four years
II the reign Of v illian w.. OF that by her
PERSONAL fascination she exercised much
influence over some Of the most command
ng intellects Of her time. For example
Prince Mstternlch, the Duke Of Welling-
on. Lord Grey. Lord Aberdeen. Lord John
Russell and n. Cuizot were among those
Who were either her close friends or I'M.
,assioned admirers. With Lord Grey. who |
,ad nearly reached his sixtieth year before 1
10 made her acquaintance. she was always
dearest Prinoess'; in letter after letter