New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-11-16

| %hi' i1NNelo 10 iloN tNlNdSo NiiAiNtbi ~
respect of the authorities he quotes.
He is perpetually citing Sir George
Trcvelyan's American Revolution; a
book of very slight historical value. 1t
is in no proper sense Of the word his
tory of the American Revolution. When
Sir George Trevelyan relnquished
his original purpose Of continuing his
Early History Of Charles James Fox
he had on his hands mass of miscel-
laneous material. This he used for the
American Revolution: often with
little reference to his new subject and
with no sense of proportion. The long
CHAPTER on Wesley is specimen. a
defence of America by an Englishman
has a certain piquancy, but in this
case the partisanship is more that OF
briefed barrister than OF a historian
and il has for that reason had little
effect on English opinion.
If Mr.. Lucas would have consulted
American authorities he would surely
have modified some of his rather I'M
sparing judgments on our colonial pro-
| ceedings. or if he would have gone to
such an English writer as Mr.. Goodwin
Smith, in his The United States: An
Outline of Political History" he would
I have had a much surer guide than Sir
| George Trevelyan. He would have
! found. instead Of the emotional impress
sions he so often accepts, the con-
! sidered judgment of true historien on
both George Third and Lord North.
| Mr. Goodwin Smith believes that sep
! aration was inevitable, but none the
less condemns those who We're the in
! struments of il:
f, Woe TO the arbitrary and bigoted
| King whose best excuse is that he had
not made himself ruler instead OF
! being what Nature intended him to be,
a ploughman."
! Woe to Lord North, and all the
more because in stopping TO do the will
Of the King he was SHINING against the
! light of good nature and good sense in
| himself"
1t is true that Mr.. Goodwin Smith
cries Woe on many others, English and
! American alike, who contributed 10 the
separation he deplores. But none the
! less would Mr.. Lucas have found in
/ him an authority, instinct with the
spirit Of equal justice to both Great
! Britain and America.
| Americans of the old school may
/ think that Mr.. Lucas here and there
shows signs of Tory prejudices. They
are perhaps inherently respectable.
But Mr.. Lucas seems at times to judge
men Of the eighteenth century by the
| standards of the twentieth. l do not
/ know that the standards of the TWEEN
| tieth are better than those of the
/ eighteenth; but they are different His
! tone about Burke is one instance. He
| lifts himself 10 own Burke's greatness. !
! but thinks he has been overpraised,
1 and by way Of redressing the balance,
! calls him an ineffective politician;
man Of faulty judgment and wild
/ temper, who ended as "a frantic reac-
| tionary Tory" and always hungry for
/ money" He is more concerned 10 note
! blemishes than to do homage to his
= resplendent genius. In all the political
writings of Burke's time alike political
and philosophical, is there anything TO
| compare with his? If one had TO
choose between his and all the rest,
! could one hesitate? To Fox as the
greatest Of the Wings Mr.. Lucas has a
| positive antipathy, and that has to be
] ~, ind b IF ia
Coalition; of which the heaviest bur-
| den ought surely to rest on North;
| guilty, politically guilty. as Fox may
| have been and was.
! Among Americans he singles out for
! censure the noblest Of all, and finds
/ himself able to say that Washington
! has earned the reputation. on made
quate grounds indeed, Of never having
! told lie" Is this a dim pleasantly on
the cherry tree fable? Is it in any
/ case thing that ought to be said? OF
| Franklin he almost adopts Wedder-
burns view, though he quotes with ap-
prevail what Junius said: LAS for Mr..
/ Wedderburn, there is something about
1 him that even treachery cannot trust"
! But then he quotes without dissent
/ Wedderburn's summary Of Franklin as
"a willy, hoary-headed traitor" He
retels in the perverse spirit Of Frank
/ Inns enemies at the time the story of
/ the Hutchinson letters and holds that
/ Franklin's conduct tastes rather Of the
/ SOY than the diplomatic agent" Sir
William Harcourt himself, who used to
rage against Franklin. could hardly
have said worse. Even the august fig
ure of Chatham, as the friend of Amer
/ ica, is not spared. He was not always
consistent. What great leader ever
was. or would have been. in changing
circumstances, great leader If he had
not changed with them?
I do not mean that Mr.. Lucas is un
friendly TO America. But he is living
( in the age when England and America
were at war and he is an Englisnman;
and in that consists one value OF his
book. We see ourselves as others then
saw us. Surely we can afford TO look
on at that spectacle and to form his
torlcal Judgment In the long run the
I historical view and the American view