might rise and crush in a body the unfortunate Roman Catholic priest, who had the temerity to tamper with the history of a people who have turned from the error of their ways. It was certainly a vast presumption in any one not a Scotchman, to write a history at all; and much more without having asked the leave of either Dr. Allen or Sir James Macintosh. Why did not Dr. Lingard wait until the appearance of the continuation of Hume by the latter gentleman? he would then have had a model by which to work, and would not have so grossly offended, by expressing his contempt of the "philosophy of history," which he dares to call the "philosophy of romance." Dr. Lingard has, moreover, most incautiously, as is openly alleged by the reviewer, spoken very freely of several Scotch heroes, especially Wallace. The most crying sin, however, which the Doctor has committed, is his contradictions of Hume, doubtless because he was a Scotchman. It is sufficient for Hume, says the reviewer, to have spoken well of any person, for the Doctor to abuse him; and, on the contrary, they who are censured by Hume, are the favourites of the unfortunate Roman Catholic. It happens, ludicrously enough, that for eight years previous to the commencement of his history, Dr. Lingard had not read a hundred pages of Hume. The examples which the reviewer has brought against the Doctor, of course, remain memorials of his own disgrace. This jealousy of Hume is, above all things, absurd and inconsistent in the Edinburgh Review, who have so lately lent all their aid to the exposure of his errors. Our historical readers must recollect an article in the Edinburgh Review, No. LXXIX. Vol. XL. (July, 1824,) entitled, "Brodie's Constitutional History, and Corrections of Mr. Hume." That article was the well-known production, not of Dr. Allen, but of a reviewer of the same clan; and a reviewer, by the way, privy to, if not an assistant in, the Massacre article.*

Now, reader, mark the consistency of this joint-stock company of Edinburgh reviewers, even on their favourite historical idol-Hume. In the Brodie article, mildly entitled, "Corrections of Mr. Hume," Mr. Hume is arraigned, on the evidence of his indefatigable commentator Mr. Brodie, of numerous and intentional mis-statements, suppressions, and wilful selections of single authorities, opposed to numerous and more credible counter-authorities. In short, Mr. Hume is convicted of lying; of matured, digested, and concealed lies. It is impossible to use language too coarse or strong: Hume is there convicted of what is only charged, without proof, against Dr. Lingard; and yet towards the former, in the last Edinburgh Review but one, Hume versus Lingard, we observe a perseverance in this idolatry of Hume, and their hatred of Dr. Lingard! How consistent the ethics of these reviewers! We will now, from the article of Brodie, reproduce their forgotten character of Hume, and refresh a treacherous memory.

"The author upon whom he has chiefly exercised this wholesome but severe discipline, it will readily be supposed, is Hume-to whose history of the same period the work before us may indeed be regarded as a professed answer or antidote-and who is here convicted of so

*For we put the following queries to the reviewer and company. Did not a certain knight and member of Parliament, borrow Caveyrac from an eminent barrister and Catholic lay-writer? Did not the gentleman in question borrow that volume for Dr. Allen? and was it not from the stores of a Catholic library that this gravamen of the charges of the Review was drawn?

many inaccuracies and partial statements, that we really think his credit among historians, for correctness of assertion, will soon be nearly as low as it has long been with theologians for orthodoxy of belief. It is this, indeed, we do not scruple to confess, that gives the work its chief value in our eyes-for though an exact and trust-worthy history of the memorable period it embraces, must have been at all times of great interest and importance, we cannot help feeling that the greatest good it can do, at present, would be to counteract the many bad effects which the unlucky, though in many respects well merited popularity of Mr. Hume's work has had on the public mind. The true source of practical Toryism, or, in other words, of personal servility to the government, is no doubt self-interest, or a strong desire for unearned emoluments and undeserved distinctions-but the great support of speculative servility and sincere Tory opinions-to which we are liberal enough to allow an actual existence, has of late years been found chiefly in Hume's history: and we have really very little doubt, that both the prejudices which infect the few genuine Tories of the present day, and the apologies by which the crowds who care nothing either for prejudice or principle, are enabled to make a plausible defence for their conduct, may be justly ascribed to the impression which the artful colouring and delusive reasonings of that book have made on public opinion-an impression which the ex cellence of the writing, the acuteness of the observations, and the apparent fairness of the deductions, have all tended powerfully to confirm."-Edinburgh Review, No. lxxix. art. v. p. 93.

As the Scotch periodical has taken such particular notice of a note in Dr. Lingard's work, we will return the compliment, by citing to the present purpose, the credibility of Hume,-a note of their own, appended to the aforesaid Brodie article, p. 97. The italics, with the exception of the words conjectural and integration, are our typographical notes of admiration.

"Mr. Hume's summaries of the conflicting views of different parties at particular eras, have been deservedly admired for the singular clearness, brevity, and plausibility with which they are composed: but, in reality, they belong rather to conjectural than to authentic history; and any one who looks into contemporary documents, will be surprised to find how very small a portion of what is there imputed to the actors of the time had actually occurred to them, and how little of what they truly maintained is there recorded in their behalf. The object of the author being chiefly to give his readers a clear idea of the scenes he described, he seems to have thought that the conduct of the actors would be best understood by ascribing to them the views and motives, which, upon reflection, appeared to himself most natural in their situation. In this way, he has often made all parties appear more reasonable than they truly were; and given probability and consistency to events, which, as they actually occurred, were not a little inconceivable. But in so doing, he has undoubtedly violated the truth of history-and exposed himself to the influence of the most delusive partialities. Such a hypothetical integration of the opinions likely to prevail in any particular circumstances, seems at all times to have been a favourite exercise of his ingenuity," &c.

We shall be only tempted to make one other clenching quotation ofthe

once avowed, now suppressed opinion, in this review of Hume." The misrepresentations of Hume are every day more known and admitted; and the unostentatious labours of his correctors have already shaken the very foundations of his authority. Professor Millar has done much to counteract the effect of his errors, as to the earlier part of our history, and Mr. Laing still more as to that portion of it which relates to the administration of the Stuarts in Scotland. Bishop Hurd, &c. has made a strong appeal against the partial statements, and unconstitutional prejudices of this author. Dr. Birch, in a very exact and elaborate treatise, has completely discredited his account of Glamorgan's transactions in Ireland; and Dr. Towers, in a valuable tract published by him in 1778, has brought together many new proofs of his extraordinary misrepresentations."* Such is the Scotch historian now held up in derogatory comparison with Dr. Lingard! For our own parts, supposing Dr. Lingard guilty of the offences, and historical inaccuracies imputed to him, we could not see "the difference of a pin" between the two. We do not seek to vindicate Dr. Lingard by recrimination on Hume; but when to these general "corrections" of Hume by the above Edinburgh reviewer, we add the exposure of him by Brodie passim, his character as an historian is destroyed. We acknowledge, nay, we admire and appreciate highly, the value of his reflections on English History; but as for his History, as such, it is prejudiced, faithless, worthless; and we believe it would be far better for the character of the author, and the information of the reader, if those reflections, and insulated portions of undoubted excellence, were subtracted from the historical part, and preserved in some separate form. To these indictments and recorded sentences of Hume, which have now justly outlawed him as an historian, we can state, that we have collated the early editions of the Political Essays with the last, as corrected by the author, and have marked with astonishment the change of sentiment-a change which may nevertheless there, as well as in his historical work, be traced in its progress, by the following useful graduated scale of political or sinister influence. It is the fashion to consider Mr. Hume a philosopher in his personal character, a gentleman who neither valued nor sought the good things of this world. The following is something more than "a hypothetical integration" of places in which, at different periods of his life, he was pleasantly seated.

1746. Secretary in general Conway's expedition.

1747. Secretary to the military embassy in Vienna and Turin. 1752. Librarian to the Edinburgh Advocate's library.

In these citations on Mr. Hume, we have merely quoted the general representations of the Edinburgh Review respecting him. The specific charges are equally strong. Thus in the article on the first review of Dr. Lingard's History, the Scotch reviewer writes,-p. 5,—“ We are far from intending by these remarks on Mr. Hume's general character as an historian, to vindicate or palliate his History of the Stuarts. We are thoroughly sensible of its deficiencies in what constitutes the chief merit of an historian, fidelity and regard to truth." If such is the character of Mr. Hume's history and philosophy on the most controverted and party-coloured period of English History, what could be expected from his general labours, when not excited by any extraordinary motives of industry and impartiality?

1762. A PENSION

7. per annum as a literary man.

1763. Secretary to Lord Hertford's French embassy.

1765. Chargé d'affaires at Paris.

1767. Under secretary of state.

We here beg our readers to believe that we are far, very far, from seeking to degrade or reduce the real philosophical reputation of David Hume: we idolize that part of his character as fervently as his most jealous countrymen; but his "Philosophy of History" is a romance, we despise, as a degrading part of his literary labours, and lament it, as a drawback upon his intellectual influence. For all doubtful and controverted passages of English history, Hume gives no authorities; whereas Dr. Lingard states no disputed point, at least, without verifying his own judgment by a reference to the evidence on which it is founded. Such is the romance which the Edinburgh reviewer prefers to Dr. Lingard's Historical Facts.

We should, moreover, like to be informed, on what principle Dr. Lingard's work can be blamed for not extending its objects, when the writer has expressly limited and defined them by a certain plan. It may be stated as a matter of regret, that any writer has not been qualified for, or undertaken a bolder and more laborious scope of history; but Mrs. Trimmer might as justly be "cut up" for not writing to adults, as Dr. Lingard for not swelling his work with "philosophy of history," when he only undertook, and intended, a full and honest detail of historical facts. Dr. Lingard chooses to write one sort of history, and Dr. Allen thinks proper to prescribe another course. We conclude it is the difficulty and labour of the process of amalgamating history and philosophy, which has so long delayed the completion and publication of an oft-promised history, which was and is to be-and may be, but we guess will never be. We have had enough of the "philosophy of history," that conserve in which historical falsehoods and misrepresentations are imbedded. Clarendon is said to have made his characters first, and to have dressed and powdered them afterwards;* and many of our posthumous historical works are well known to have been philosophised and garnished by party editors. The dangerous and destructive effects of this philosophy of history" are singularly displayed in the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Edinburgh Review. We see that cultivated men, even aware of the mendacity of Hume, are nevertheless fascinated and seduced by his amusing philosophical romance; the amount, therefore, of the imposition on the credulous and unthinking, that is to say, the bulk of the public, may be easily estimated. Dr. Lingard, in the preface to his Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, very sensibly and pertinently remarks that, " on almost every subject, the public mind is guided by the wisdom or prejudices of a few favourite writers: their reputation consecrates their opinions; and their errors are received by the incautious reader, as the dictates of truth." p. v. At all events Dr. Lingard's "sacrifice to the vulgar cant of the day"+ towards Hume, stands justified by the experience of the latter historian's ro

It has been well said of this fascinating but misrepresenting historical writer, that he could paint a good picture, but no portrait.

+ Edinburgh Review. No. LXXXIII. part. 1, p. 7.

mantic propensities; and certainly Dr. Lingard had a right to write English History, with or without the addition of the "philosophy of history."

But to proceed to Dr. Lingard's "Vindication." We shall shortly detail the leading points of the attack and the defence. The following brief and manly introduction prefaces Dr. Lingard's pamphlet.

"It did not escape me, when I first sate down to write the History of England,' that I had imposed on myself a toilsome and invidious task. I foresaw that it would require habits of patient research, and incessant application; that I should frequently be obliged to contradict the statements of favourite writers, occasionally perhaps to offend the political or religious partialities of my readers; and that my pretensions to accuracy would provoke others to seek out and expose those casual errors, which no human vigilance can totally exclude from long and laborious compositions. But the knowledge of these inconveniences did not divert me from my purpose. I have pursued it faithfully and fearlessly through six quarto volumes, and have brought down the history from the first invasion by the Romans to the death of Charles the First.

"As the work issued from the press, it gradually attracted notice. By some writers it was honoured with the meed of their approbation others selected certain portions for the subject of animadversion. To these I made no reply, intending to reserve myself till the completion of my labours, and then, in a general answer, to admit emendation, where I found myself in error, and to defend my former statements, where I thought them captiously or wantonly assailed. If I now recede from that resolution, it is in consequence of a late article in the Edinburgh Review.' Its writer, having previously surveyed the whole work, pounces with the rapacity of the vulture, on a note at the end of the fifth volume, relating to an event unconnected with English history; and encouraged by the detection of certain real or imaginary errors, he charges me with carelessness, and fraud, aud misrepresentation; and pronounces his solemn and deliberate judgment, that the book is one of a most dangerous description, which will impress the minds of its readers with false and incorrect notions of the history of their country, and of the character and conduct of their ancestors. This sample of enlightened criticism has drawn from me the present tract. It is not in my disposition to affect an apathy which I do not feel, or to sit down tamely under reproach which I do not deserve. I owe it to myself to refute this sweeping accusation; I owe it to my readers to show, that I have not abused their confidence."

Dr. Lingard then proceeds to the subject matter of accusation and vindication. He states that his note on the massacre of St. Bartholomew had been originally reserved for a place among the notes in the appendix to the fifth volume; but that it did not appear in its original shape, the overgrown bulk of that volume having compelled him to reduce it to one half of its original size. Minor, though corroborative circumstances, were omitted; many of the particular authorities were suppressed; and all reasoning on either side of the question was excluded. Dr. Lingard had, therefore, briefly requested the reader of his history to believe that his opinion, differing as it did from that of