« НазадПродовжити »
and precarious of all connexions between nations as between individuals. The more patient of the two parties is expected to bear everything, and is thanked for nothing; and the closeness of the intimacy only affords more frequent occasions for bickerings and reproaches. Let us have amity with France,sincere and open, and, if possible, solid,—such as we have, or ought to have, with Russia, or Prussia, or Austria ; but no such secret and undefined obligations as would estrange us from the collective policy of the rest of Europe, and, after all, end, on the very first untoward accident or occasion, in a similar, or perhaps a still worse, explosion of hostility than we have lately witnessed, and, as we hope, happily and honourably escaped.
On the other hand, let us with equal care avoid doing anything which may give offence, or even umbrage. Let us endeavour to allay the jealous susceptibility of our neighbours, by good manners in all our proceedings, and good faith in all our engagements. And this leads us to a final remark on the Eastern question.
The French whole press and all French statesinen affect to fear-or indeed may be really apprehensive—that England bas some separate interest in these discussions--that she has some latent design on Egypt or on Syria. We think we may venture to deny, in the fullest and most formal manner, on the part of the British nation, any such unworthy, and indeed preposterous, views: and we exceedingly regret that one--and we hope but one-respectable English journal should have indiscreetly given the colour of its authority to such an imputation—by suggesting that England, as the recompence of the blood and treasure she has spent in the contest, should retain possession of Acre, and some other points in the Levant. We believe the Government and people of England will utterly repudiate any such selfish, and worse than selfish, proposition. England wants nothing in the Levant but what she hopes to enjoy in common with all mankind,-friendly relations, safe intercourse, and a general and mutual civility and protection to persons and property.
There is, however, one point on which she and all Christian people feel so especial an interest that it deserves to be particularly noticed,— our holy city of Jerusalem. Let the European powers, as a return for their exertions, stipulate that-however Syria may be otherwise administered—there shall henceforward be, for all the world, a free access to, and safe residence within, the city of Jerusalem-a place sanctified to us all by reverential recollections, by huly associations, and by pious hopes. 1- which we trust might not be the case—any pledge or guarantee for this object be necessary ;-if, for instance, the Porte itself, aware of her own
condition, should fear that she has not the power to maintain an adequate police in Palestine by her own means; and if the occupation of St. Jean d'Acre by a European power should be thought necessary to insure free access to the Holy Land,- let it be committed to the care-not of England; God forbid ! but-if she will accept the trust-to that of Austria ; a power of whose guardianship no one could be jealous, and on whose good faith all could rely.* But let us rather hope that the Porte, by undertaking itself this interesting office, will avoid any derogation, however slight, from its territorial integrity.
To conclude :-If Mehemet Ali and France have been encouraged in their opposition to the general wishes of Europe by the hope of any serious difference of opinion in England on these subjects, they are egregiously mistaken. A dozen of crazy agitators may deceive half a dozen ignorant mobs, and may carry to Paris the empty nonsense of their congratulation and encouragement-to be disregarded there as they have been despised at home: but the great majority of the wealth, intelligence, and weight of the people of England--the Conservative party
will be found ready to support even their political adversaries, when they have—however reluctantly and unintentionally-blundered into a right course. The Conservative party will be always true to its Conservative principles. It accepts the Reform Bill in England, and the July revolution in France, as des faits accomplis, to use M. Guizot's own expression :-what is done is done-and the Conservatives in both countries have now no other duty but to endeavour to improve the existing circumstances-quicquid corrigere est nefas--to the advancement of private happiness and public prosperity, to the progress of civilisation and light, and particularly to the first indispensable condition of all civilisation and prosperity-universal peace.
In England, the Conservatives will never attack their adversaries through the public interests, nor attempt to embarrass them on questions in which they have supported, however inconsistently and feebly, a national and rational policy. They will seek their increase of strength where they found its original elements—in honest means-in the patriotic industry of their representatives in the Legislature—and in zeal and activity at the registry and in the corporations. They well know that there lie the legal and legitimate springs of their future and not distant success. They will prepare themselves against the agitation of new reform bills, which will be produced when their adversaries shall have found that the old
* It would, we hope, be no serious objection that the Emperor of Austria now takes, We believe in common with the Kings of Naples and Sardinia, the nominal title of king of Jerusalem.
ones have failed to answer their private purposes ; and they will endeavour to consolidate and protect all existing institutionseven the Reform and Municipal Bills—against the wickedness and folly of unscrupulous men, who will seek to destroy their own work as soon as they find it insufficient to accomplish their own ends—who reformed before, and will try to reform again—not for the sake of real reform, but for the miserable conveniences of a party and a disreputable and powerless tenure of place.
The Conservatives may well congratulate themselves on their great, their growing, and speedily triumphant force, increasing honourably and rapidly, in despite of the influence of the most corrupt of governments, and without the personal predilections of a misinformed and misguided court.
NOTE.--In our last Number it was inadvertently stated that Mr. Christian was Vinerian law professor at Oxford; in truth he was Downing law professor at Cambridge.
Art. I.—History of Scotland. By Patrick Fraser Tytler, Esq.
Vol. VIŤ. Edinburgh. 1840. pp. 471. THE industry to trace and discover historical documents is
I seldom found united with the talent to condense and employ them. It is not always the same hand that can draw forth the metal from the mine and smelt away the dross. We have seen in France, during the last century, innumerable narratives, like Voltaire's, clear, lively, and ingenious, but constructed from the fancy rather than from facts. We have seen, in our own time and country, men who deem they have done good service in printing, without selection, barrowful after barrowful and cartload after cartload of unwieldy records. Yet it is only this rare combination in one mind of patient research, with perspicuous deduction, that can constitute the character or deserve the praise of an Historian.
In both these respects we think that high praise is due to Mr. Tytler. Not content with a careful study of the printed authorities, he has searched through many collections of manuscripts, and, above all, that great storehouse of our history, the State-Paper Office. His labours in this field have been rewarded with an ample harvest. But he has not employed these fruits of his labours merely as a dry antiquarian,—as a 'word-catcher that lives on syllables,'— but has applied them with singular sagacity and judgment to the facts already known or the doubts hitherto remaining. Nor has he fallen, unless in few cases, into the common error of ascribing undue importance and value to his own discoveries. From the whole he has derived a narrative, clear, vigorous, and graphic in its style, accurate and trustworthy in its statements. His candour and love of truth are conspicuous in every page; he has not been drawn aside by any favourite theory or preconceived opinion, and he has dealt out justice to all with a firm and unsparing hand.
It is therefore with great satisfaction that we hail the appear. ance of Mr. Tytler's seventh volume. One more will complete the work, which, we venture to predict, will then become, and long remain, the standard history of Scotland.
The seventh volume, now before us, comprises the most VOL. LXVII. NO. CXXXIV.
brilliant, but also by far the most difficult, portion of Mr.
Tytler's undertaking,—the reign of the ill-fated Mary after her marriage with Darnley. No period of any history has been the scene of more fierce and stubborn controversies; over none have prejudice and passion cast a deeper veil. Considering the host of documents that have already appeared in print on this short but eventful period, and how eagerly most collections have been ransacked again and again by rival writers, we should scarcely have supposed that there remained any fresh materials to discover. Again, when we looked to the pertinacity with which almost every inch of the ground has been fought, it seemed probable that any new historian must be constantly arrested and turned aside from his path to engage in some thorny debate. Yet, to our surprise, Mr. Tytler's labours have succeeded in eliciting many new and important facts even from this exhausted field; and he has threaded his way amidst the surrounding controversies, never heedless of their arguments, never blind to their lights, yet always remembering that his own object is, and ought to be, a narrative, not a dissertation.
We must confess, however, that we are not quite pleased with the conclusion to which Mr. Tytler at length arrives : It is difficult,' says he, 'to draw any certain conclusion as to the probability of Mary's guilt or innocence in the murder of her husband. .... Upon the whole, it appears to me that, in the present state of the controversy, we are really not in possession of sufficient evidence to enable any impartial inquirer to come to an absolute decision.' It appears to us, on the contrary, that Mr. Tytler's own labours have done much to resolve such doubts, and will appear far more conclusive to others than they have done to himself. We do not see any reason for leaving the mind under what Mr. Tytler proceeds to call this painful and unsatisfying impression. The documents on this controversy are, perhaps, more ample than on any other disputed point in history; and the time has come when there is no longer any political object in perverting them. No longer is it attempted to serve an exiled family by proving that no Stuart could possibly do wrong. No longer is it deemed the best proof of loyalty to the reigning House of Hanover to heap insults and invectives on one of its own lineal ancestors. In short, if we forbear to judge, the fault, as we conceive, lies no longer in the deficiency of information, nor yet in the prevalence of party.
In this conviction we will endeavour, however imperfectly, yet as the result of a careful study of the question, to supply the gap left by Mr. Tytler, or rather, as jurors, to decide upon the evidence he has so ably laid before us. Our view of the subject will probably