Page images
PDF
EPUB

tories, as the very remarkable fact that the view of the King's conduct and character given by the author now named, was received by each party with equal displeasure and indignation. In truth, the one faction and the other had been accustomed, down to the date in question, to read those books only which had been produced by their respective partizans ; and, as far as the motives and actions of Charles the First were concerned, every work was either a glowing eulogy or a fierce satire.

Reflection, however, and the progress of moderate sentiments have induced the majority on both sides to adopt the conclusions of Hume. In opposition to this remark, it must indeed be allowed that several individuals, distinguished not less by talent than by their support of popular principles, have, from time to time, muttered their disapprobation of this historian's kingly predilections, and even threatened to expose his inaccuracies both in point of fact and reasoning. Mr. Fox, for instance, was wont to condemn Hume, long before he bimself had begun to study the subject on which the other had written; and when at length he did proceed in earnest to the task of refutation, he had still to ask his friends where the materials were to be found. Sir James M'Intosh, again, has permitted his bookseller to announce a work on the history of Great Britain, the principal object of which, we presume, is to counteract the tory prejudices of his philosophical countryman; but if report speaks truly in regard to Sir James's undertaking, the world will yet remain some time in ignorance as to the real character of the men and things which оссиру the annals of the seventeeth century.

These remarks naturally remind us of the work which constitutes the subject of the present article, and which likewise obviously proceeds from the school of Charles Fox and Sir J. M'Intosh. The author, confident in abilities, which we doubt not, will at some future day, confer upon his country a lasting credit and produce even a more splendid monument of their power than that now before us, has boldly achieved what the others have only meditated, and fearlessly laid before the world what they have only conversed about among their friends. We do not, however, profess to say that Mr. Brodie has been completely successful in every thing that he has undertaken, or that his conclusions are, in every instance, as satisfactory as they are decisively pronounced. On many points our opinions are diametrically opposed to those which he wishes to establish; and we have not found much reason, either from the additional facts which he has brought to

light, or from the arguments which he has raised upon them, to alter materially any of our former judgments. Still we are ready to acknowledge that, after all the writing and investigation which had preceded his attempt, there is no small credit in having produced facts not hitherto established; and in having originated views which had not disclosed themselves to others, who professed to have walked over the ground which he has more carefully examined. On several occasions Mr. Brodie has secured his claim to this rare merit, as will afterwards appear in the course of our analysis.

There is obviously a great difference between searching for and examining documents, in order to ascertain the facts on some particular point, which has fallen into controversy, and the perusing of the same documents when an author is simply in search of materials for a general narrative, embracing numerous and various particulars. In the one case, the most trivial circumstance rises into importance, and assumes, from its connection with the litigated topic a value, in the eyes of a party writer, which it could not possibly have in the estimation of a mere annalist; and on this account it must frequently happen that the author of a life or of a single reign, guided and restricted by the very specialty of his enquiry, will detect occurrences, and can make a plausible conjecture into motives, which the purposes of the more general historian did not require that he should weigh with particular accuracy. On the principle now suggested, Mr. Brodie has, in some instances, added to the information previously collected by Mr. Hume.

There is another advantage enjoyed by our author which was not so amply provided to his predecessor, and of which he has availed himself with such a degree of industry, as has given no small additional value to his work. We allude to the immense materials for history which have of late years been laid before the public, arising from the resolution adopted by many noble families of printing such papers in their possession as might contribute to throw light on certain national events, as well as on the policy of the statesmen who directed them. The public records, too, and more particu larly the statutes of the kingdom and the parliamentary history, are in a much more orderly and accessible condition than they were fifty years ago: a circumstance of the very first importance to him who has to authenticate facts, correct dates, and trace the chain of connection among political transactions and resolves, which, though mutually dependent,

VOL. XIX, JANUARY, 1823.

C

seem but slenderly related in the order of their occur

rence.

These are advantages peculiar in a great measure to the circumstances in which Mr. Brodie has written; and we repeat that he has improved them with an assiduity which commands praise, and with a degree of success which cannot fail to reward his utmost pains. But we regret that we cannot bestow equal commendation on the spirit and temper with which his work is composed. There is in it an acrimony which ever and anon discomposes the mind of the reader, and stirs him up involuntarily to a corresponding bitterness, not only against the author himself, but against those historical personages on whose account, and in vindication of whose measures, he thinks he does well to be angry. Mr. Brodie, too, often forgets his character of historian, and assumes that of the advocate; and we find him, accordingly, in numerous passages of his book, using all the freedoms of a barrister in attacking character and defaming witnesses; and occasionally also addressing to his readers that sophistical species of logic with which he might hope to influence a jury. From the outset he labours to secure a verdict of guilty against Charles, Strafford, Laud, and Monk. He admits no palliating circumstances: gives no credit for good intentions,→→ allows nothing for involuntary error and the difficulty of situation; whilst certificates of character and all remembrance of former merits are at once disregarded and thrown aside. He acts on the maxim of a late police judge, that "we have all good characters till we are found out;" and seems to think that when kings, ministers, and bishops are found out, the law ought immediately to take its course, and rid the country of such nuisances. Mr. Brodie, in revising his volumes for another edition, must contrive to get himself into better humour, and soften down his asperity to the more moderate tone of readers in the present age. Why should he emulate the blood-hound pertinacity of Pym, and the vindictive harangues of Bradshaw? There may, indeed, be honesty in taking a side, and in avowing an object. But whenever an author allows himself to be hurried on by his prepossessions beyond a candid statement and comparison of facts, he arms his reader against him, and excites suspicion as to the use which he makes of even unquestionable authorities. On all occasions, in every variety of fortune, in the conducting of every enterprize, in the deliberations of the council, and in the operations of the field, Mr. Brodie stands by the parliament; triumphs in their success, and condoles with their misfortunes; whilst for Charles, and his cause and his ad

herents, he entertains neither sympathy nor candour ;—even in cases where human motives should be the least suspected, and where suffering, even when deserved, seldom fail to excite commiseration. In short, it requires but a slight exercise of imagination in the reader to identify Mr. Brodie with some of the more virulent orators of the Long Parliament, when expatiating on the guilt of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or when pressing the condemnation of Charles Stuart.

One of the main qualities of Hume's history of the unhappy reign to which these remarks bear an allusion, is the perfect equanimity with which he records the events and counsels which enter into his narrative; never allowing himself to imbibe the spirit of a partizan, or to enlist his passions on the one side or the other. He preserves, too, an air of candour even where his feelings and prejudices are the most active; and he uses at least the language of impartiality even in those particular cases in which his opponents have been most successful in detecting his political bias. But Mr. Brodie has either too much honesty or too little art and temper to assume the appearance of these virtues so essential to the character of an historian. His intellect, vigorous as it may be, is, on all occasions, equalled by the fervour of his emotions; and his happiest exercises of acumen and critical discernment, are rapidly succeeded by a corresponding burst of indignation or of triumph.

The first volume of this "history of the British Empire" is introductory, and follows a method a good deal similar to that of Millar's work on the English Government. After tracing, in the first chapter, the progress of society and of political institutions from the feudal times down to the close of Elizabeth's reign, the author proceeds, in the second chapter, to encounter the assertion of Hume, that the government of this country, under the queen just named, bore some resemblance to that of Turkey. In order to convict the Stuarts of tyranny, and of entering into a regular plan for destroying the liberty of the subject, Mr. Brodie endeavours to prove that the principles of our constitution were perfectly ascertained and established in the time of the Tudors; an undertaking which, we need hardly observe, is attended with very little success, and which, in fact, establishes nothing besides the writer's ingenuity and zeal. Before the reign of Henry the Seventh, the government of England, we shall grant, was a limited monarchy: but how was it limited? Why, by the power of the barons; who were accustomed to repress by their formidable combinations, and even by the arms of their followers, every encroachment of the crown upon the privi

leges and possessions of their order. The power of the king was limited in those days, exactly as the arbitrary dominion of the Turkish emperor is limited at the present day; namely, by the fear of his pashas and the scimitars of their retainers. The union of the two roses, which depressed one large body of the nobility and bound the other to the throne, tended no doubt in more ways than one to augment very materially the personal influence of the monarch, and even to enlarge the royal prerogative; but still the main check to the power of Henry was derived from the hereditary strength of the peerage, and the vast extent of rights and immunities claimed by that potent class of subjects. In a word, the limits of royal power were by no means fixed in those turbulent times; and generally speaking they were found to expand or contract, according to the talents and ambition of individual monarchs, or according to such accidental circumstances as raised or diminished the antagonist power of the great barons.

..It had been the policy of our kings, during several reigns, to foster the interests of the Commons and increase their influence in the State, with the obvious purpose of reducing the preponderancy so long exercised by the great vassals of the crown. This object, favoured by a variety of circumstances, arising out of the improved condition of commerce, and division of landed property, was at length effected to such an extent, that the lower House of Parliament found itself in complete possession of the power, which it had been raised to counteract, and the royal prerogative was ultimately limited in its operation by that very body of men who had at first been courted with the view of supporting it.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

During this change various Acts of Parliament were passed, obtained by the influence of the king and the commens, in favour of the latter; which, together with the several concessions wrested from the crown at a more early period, gave to the theory of government a degree of perfection which it did not at all possess in point of practice. The historian, therefore, who would measure the degree of freedom and protection actually enjoyed in England, by the number of statutes enacted, from time to time, for repressing the authority of the sovereign, or for confirming the franchises of the people, would form a very incorrect opinion, indeed, in regard to the real condition of things. In the reign of Henry the Eighth, all the safeguards of public liberty which had been created under former kings were still in existence, and yet no one requires to be told that the government of that monarch was arbitrary in the extreme. Speaking of the Commons at this era, Blackstone observes that "intent upon

« PreviousContinue »