E. Brooks, ART. X.-1. History of England from the first Invasion of the Romans. By JOHN LINGARD, D. D. London. 1825. 2. History of the British Empire from the Accession of Charles the First, to the Restoration. By GEORGE BRODIE. Edinburgh. 1822.

3. A Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry the Seventh to the Death of George the Second. Second Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. London. 1829.

4. History of the Commonwealth. By WILLIAM GOdwin. THERE is scarcely any topic more noble in itself, or more interesting to the human race, than Constitutional History; by which is meant the history of the progress of nations in the art of self-government. This term is no longer confined, as it once was, to the annals of Great Britain, and a few states which have sprung from her. Within the last half century, a great change has been brought about in this, as in many other particulars. Principles of government which were once treated as fanciful and absurd, or at least as suited only for the atmosphere of the British Islands, are now diffused, not as idle theories and shadowy speculations, but soberly and practically, over the fairest portions of both hemispheres. Constitutional liberty now beams on all North America, and a large portion of South America; and in the old world, is shedding its light over the 'gay regions of France, and glances on the wretched remnant of the devoted population of Greece. Even in those countries of Christendom where free principles of government are not avowedly adopted, their influence is felt and acknowledged; the shackles of superstitution and ignorance are yielding to the grasp of free inquiry; the two conflicting systems are placed in fair opposition, and we cannot doubt that the result will be such as the friends of rational liberty ardently hope for, and confidently expect.

While we contemplate this state of things with exultation, we are naturally led to look backward, and trace the progress of this giant power, from infancy to its present state. Our minds are involuntarily carried back to a remote period of English history. We watch with anxious gaze the frail barks which bear a few Saxon adventurers from the mouths of the Elbe, who carry with them that dauntless spirit, and those simple and primitive laws, which are to expand and flourish in the British Isles. One thousand years afterwards, a band composed of the descendants of these rude invaders, is seen preparing for a bolder VOL. XXIX.-No. 64.

34

需

voyage, by which this spirit and these institutions are to be transplanted to a still wider field, where we fondly hope they are destined to arrive at full perfection. To follow the Constitution, through the different stages of its progress, from the establishment of the Saxon power in England, is a most interesting subject of inquiry, and one which, by a singular fatality, has been reserved for our day. The English nation has been in nothing more unfortunate than in her historians. While she was advancing step by step in the attainment of freedom, it was hardly possible that history should keep pace with her. In times of excitement, we do not look for philosophical history from contemporary authors. The actors in those great events which for half a century agitated the nation, could not be expected to be impartial narrators of them. That Clarendon should have leaned to one side, and Whitelock and Burnet to the other, is saying no more than that they were subject to the infirmities of humanity. Unhappily, however, passion and prejudice long survived the contest which produced them. The moment which seemed most favorable for the appearance of a British historian, after the House of Brunswick had become quietly established on the throne, was seized upon by Mr Hume; who possessed almost every requisite for the undertaking, but that without which all the rest are worthless-a fair and candid mind. At this time of day it is unnecessary to enlarge on the faults of Mr Hume's History of England. Like all great evils, this one has at length wrought its own cure. His misrepresentations are now so glaring, that the very party he intended to aid, has been obliged to turn against him in self-defence. In nothing is the progress of liberal opinions more clearly shown than in the fate of this historian. Notwithstanding the charms of his style, and the vigor of his intellect, no Englishman of sense pretends now-a-days to justify or defend him. Having devoted several pages in a late number to this subject,* we shall merely add, that the works placed at the head of this article, are among the best antidotes to the subtle poison of this artful casuist. Dr Lingard, roused to indignation by the injury done to the Catholic Church, has taken the field in its defence. Brodie has entered the lists as the champion of the English nation in general, against the assertion of Mr Hume that the condition of that people under the Tudors was much like that of Turkey at the period when he wrote. Both these writers

*See North American Review, No. 61, for October, 1828.

Mr.

are led by their zeal into some extravagance and occasional inaccuracy. In the ordinary style of partisans, they make the most of their respective cases, and leave the reader to his own deductions. Mr Hallam has had the courage to take the most dangerous ground of all, that of umpire between the parties,. and of course must lay his account with blame from all sides. He has aimed at impartiality, and seems to have attained it, as far as it is attainable on such a subject. The wish to be impartial shows a liberal and honest mind, and such a mind can hardly fail to incline to what may be called the popular side of the grand question. He pursues with a steady eye the clew of the constitution, through the labyrinth of feudal tyranny and fanatical fury; when snapped by prerogative, or entangled by anarchy. His object is to exhibit the English people, and the ground they have stood upon, in all the changes of the gov

ernment.

A theme more worthy can hardly be imagined; compared with it, how poor are the stories of the Continental states. The miserable squabbles of Guelph and Ghibeline, which for centuries fill up the annals of Europe, appear almost too trifling to be read. The rise of the Houses of Hapsburg and Brandenburg is but little better. One usurper succeeds to another; one elector takes his fellow elector prisoner, and carts him over Europe as a show. The blood of the people is shed to secure an appanage for the son of some needy potentate; while the people themselves are handed over from one ruler to another, with as little ceremony as cattle change owners at a fair. The history which has obtained the name of constitutional, is just the reverse of this. It is the only true history of man; and being founded on the principles of our nature, stirs up within us an irresistible interest. Time, instead of diminishing this interest, adds a value to the most remote event connected with it. The transactions of the reign of Charles the First, are infinitely more studied now than they were one hundred years ago; while the Spanish war of the succession, and the campaigns of Marlborough, which in their day filled the world. with wonder, and shook Europe to the centre, are fast passing into insignificance.

Mr Hallam, has of course, confined himself to the constitutional History of Great Britain. In the foregoing remarks we have considered this but as one branch of the subject. He treats of the progress made by the English people in constitu

tional liberty. The same principles modified by the peculiarities of climate and national character, apply to all governments which recognise certain rights on the part of the people; whether under the form of a limited monarchy, restrained by the delegated voice of the nation, as in France and England, or under that of a pure republic, as in the United States. To follow up the subject, and point out the steps by which the vast revolutions now going on in the world have been brought about, is reserved for some other hand. To the citizens of these states, inquiries of this nature have a peculiar value, standing as we do on a middle ground;. tracing back our history on the one hand to the settlement of our own country, and thence to the infancy of British story; while on the other, we have before us events certainly momentous, either for 'weal or woe.' Whether we consider then the importance of, a correct knowledge of our own institutions, as citizens of a free state; or the desire natural to all men to look forward and speculate on the probable condition of coming generations, the subject is full of interest. It becomes us to inquire by what means information in relation to it, can best be disseminated; and particularly to ask ourselves whether it has hitherto had its proper share of attention in our places of education. At this moment there is no occasion to say anything in recommendation of the advantages of knowledge in general. All judicious observers are convinced, that the institutions under which we live, must owe their support to an enlightened, sober, and industrious population. The fate of our country is in the hands of its inhabitants; and it must rise or fall as the character of the people is elevated or debased. In this point of view, the importance of a right education is incalculable; and in no department of it is correct information more necessary, than in that of Constitutional History in its widest sense. It is the great excellence of republican forms of government, that they adapt themselves to the wants and circumstances of mankind. To know what those wants are, and what the experience of other nations has taught in regard to government, is essential to every man who would understand his duties, not only as a legislator, but as a citizen called on to judge of the conduct of his representatives.

The advantages of right notions on this point are so obvious, and the application of them so perpetually occurring, that it would seem as if no seminary which pretended to furnish a liberal education, should be without some provision for instruc

tion in regard to it. Yet, strange as it may seem, there is no branch which has been so entirely neglected. We will not undertake to assert, that there is no professorship of History in the United States; but we are quite sure that in no seminary in Massachusetts has provision been made until very lately for instruction in this department. Something may have been done for history in general; but we are not aware that any steps have yet been taken to correct the ill effects which have resulted from the want of proper direction to students in English history. We infer this from the fact, which is sometimes mentioned as an evidence of improvement, 'that where one student read Hume's History of England twenty years ago, ten read it now;' that is to say, that ten times as much prejudice, falsehood, and sophistry is imbibed, to be eradicated in after life, as was imbibed twenty years ago. That a young man might not be worse employed than in reading Hume, we will not undertake to assert; but that any instructer in our day should place his work in the hands of a youth, leaving him to suppose that it contained the truth, is to us matter of no little surprise. It is certain that in England, his authority as to any event subsequent to the accession of the Tutor dynasty, would be received with ridicule. His misstatements are the more dangerous, because they are not the effect of passion or honest zeal; but cool, deliberate, and artful. The weapons he wields are sophistry and sarcasm. He does not assail openly, but with a plausible affectation of impartiality, blasts a character by some sneering insinuation, at the close of a pretended encomium. This is the most dangerous of all modes of attack, because most captivating to the young and inexperienced reader. An instance may be cited in the character of Hampden; whom he has not the effrontery openly to abuse, but insinuates that his high qualities were obscured by a morbid fanaticism, which would have evaporated in psalm-singing among the wilds of America, whither he was on the point of going; and 'where,' says Mr Hume, he could only propose the advantage of puritanical prayers and sermons.' So says Mr Hume; but history tells us, that Mr Hampden's ground of complaint was, not only that he was not allowed to pray after his own way, but that if he did not conform, in this respect, to the prescriptions of my Lords Bishops, he was liable to punishment as a felon. To Mr Hume it no doubt seemed a small matter; being indifferent to both creeds, he thought it a mighty foolish thing to quarrel