Page images


former writers, was not formed till after a diligent perusal and comparison of the most authentic documents on the subject." This latter assertion the Edinburgh reviewer thinks proper contemptuously to discredit

. And the reviewer contends that Dr. Lingard, in the narrative of the Massacre, has exhibited so many instances of carelessness and haste, so many misconceptions and misrepresentations, so long a train of literary delinquencies, that he could not have read with attention, if at all, the works to which he had appealed. The reviewer, moreover, intimates that all the Doctor's knowledge on the sabject was derived from Caveyrac*—that Caveyrac's dissertation had no authority, and its author no credit; but that through the medium of that writer, Dr. Lingard had seen and“ diligently compared the original documents on this subject.” Dr. Lingard first exposes “ the artful manner of proof,” and in the onset convicts the reviewer of thrice substituting his own words as a quotation from the Doctor ! In exposing " the original and authentic documents" of the reviewer, Dr. Lingard shows that Masson's life of Charles IX., pompously referred to among other great authorities, consists merely of six loosely printed pages,

6 in which the immense number of fifteen lines is devoted to the history of St. Bartholomew;" the mere heads of a projected history, which its author never reprinted in his collected works ! Query, whether the reviewer ever saw Masson, or whether, “ like a feather in a peacock's tail,” Masson was not adopted for the sake and display of the plumage of reference ? Dr. Lingard then notices the quo animo evinced in the singularity of the reviewer hopping from the prefatory address to the very last paragraph of the memoir, to comment on the epithet “ huguenot" being applied to three noto: riously Catholic writers—a mere mistake of the Doctor's amanuensis, who seeing “ Huguenot" in the margin of Dr. Lingard's manuscript (a private mark to aid his memory) erroneously copied it as a correction of the real text “national.” Dr. Lingard mildly admits that the reviewer may claim the merit of having discovered the copyist's error, but doubts whether the merit of the discovery will atone for the unfair use to which it has been applied. As a set off, he detects similar errors in the reviewer's own article, but disdains to turn them to the same misconstruction.t

He then proceeds to defend and support his opinion of the improbability of the plot being preconcerted, which he chiefly founds-1. on the friendship of the king for Coligni, the leader of the huguenots; 2. the attempt on the life of that nobleman; 3. the visit of the royal family to the bed-side of the wounded man.

# “ The reviewer tells us that this work had little success when it first appeared, and obtained no favourable reputation for its author,' p. 95. I know not whence he received his information ; but the clamour which it raised among the infidel party in France, and their attempt to put it down, by falsely representing it as an apology for the massacre, are powerful testimonies in its favour. The reviewer lends a helping hand to its opponents, by charging Caveyrac with the omission of two words (qu'autres,) in a quotation from La Popelinière : desired a friend to copy for me the whole page from the original, aad in his copy the very same words are wanting." Vindication, p. 12.

+" Not uncommon even in the writings of the reviewer himself. Thus I have shown that in transcribing my words he has thrice substituted ' original' for 'authentic;' and thus again in p. 123, he refers to La Popelinière, ii. 67. for the massacre of Vassy, though in reality it is my reference for the massacre of Paris, which happened ten years afterwards.” --Vindication, p, 11,

We shall not follow him into all the detail of evidence and reasoning on these points; but they certainly form a very strong argument in Dr. Lingard's favour. He next defends his position, that there is « no credible authority for a preconcerted plot;” and very fully discusses the objections of the reviewer to the testimony of Anjou and Tavannes. He enters into a minute examination of the circumstances attending the council before the massacre, the subsequent massacres, the public and private orders, and also the personal character of Charles,

The first chapter of the Vindication fully makes good Dr. Lingard's position. 1. That the charges against him of ignorance, and bad faith, and misrepresentation, were rashly and groundlessly advanced ; and goes far to prove-2. that the hypothesis of a preconcerted plot is unsupported by satisfactory authority, and liable, on the score of probability, to the most formidable objections; 3. that the massacres in the provinces were confined to a few places, and originated principally, if not entirely, in the vindictive passions of the people.

The second chapter then notices other imputed misrepresentations of French history, which the reviewer had charged against Dr. Lingard. We cannot enter into the detail and minutiæ of this controversy, we can only state our opinion that Dr. Lingard is wholly and decidedly victorious. And as he justly says, the difference between himself and the reviewer is not so great as imagined, or (we will say) as the latter was desirous of representing it. They both agree that the attempt on Coligni is irreconcileable with the co-existence of a plan

general massacre, and that the latter was taken up afterwards, on account of the failure of the former; in this only they differ, that the reviewer considers the massacre as the revival of an abandoned plot ; Dr. Lingard as the effect of an entirely new and sudden design. We shall not cite the numerous counter-detections, in which Dr. Lingard convicts his reviewer of suppressions and misrepresentations; of bringing into juxta-position passages which lie at a distance from each other ; of converting the premises into the conclusion, and the conclusion into the premises. We have already shown that the reviewer's assertions were not entitled to credit, and that Dr. Lingard is innocent of the base charges of intentional falsehood.

We admire, and cannot too highly praise, the manly, temperate, and christian spirit of Dr. Lingard's Vindication. It is a model of controversial style and reply. The dignity and moderate spirit in which Dr. Lingard repels the coarse language and accusations of his antagonist, are no slight collateral assurances of his sincerity, and that truth is on his side. Dr. Lingard thus mildly but spiritedly closes his defence:

“ As far as regards the historical question in dispute, there can, I think, remain no doubt, that the opinion which I adopted, was the only one probable in itself, and supported by real authority. If this be so, I am satisfied : the cavils of the reviewer, with his vituperative and vindictive language, may be given to the winds.

Tradam protervis in mare Creticum

Portare ventis.'' The last forty or fifty pages of the pamphlet are devoted to his reply to Mr. Todd and the Quarterly reviewer. We shall not now trouble ourselves with these minor victims. Dr. Lingard discusses and castigates them in as thorough and genteelamode as he visits the sins of their


Edinburgh neighbours. The Quarterly reviewer had mentioned, with distinguished praise," the severe and unrelenting vigilance with which Mr. Todd has hunted Dr. Lingard through his many mis-statements respecting Archbishop Cranmer;" and as Dr. Lingard says, the Quarterly is not content with paying this compliment, but aspires to a share in the honours of the chace. To preserve the metaphor, we may say that the doctor has completely run them out of scent; and he is far too old a controversial fox to let such hacks be in at his death. He shows that he has “ no great reason to fear these literary Nimrods;" and throws off the Quarterly reviewer. “ The reader has seen how easily I burst the gossamer nets of Mr. Todd ; the toils spread by his brother huntsman are fabricated of the same light and flimsy materials."

We are inclined to think that those who thus assaulted Dr. Lingard, little anticipated that he would have made so stout and successful a resistance. The brief and quiet notice he had vouchsafed to afford his old enemies in the prefaces to the successive volumes of his history, made them indulge in the hope and belief of impunity.

Dr. Lingard, however, has vindicated himself, and yet avoided all irrelevant matter and unnecessary prolixity. He concludes

on most of the subjects, I might with justice have said more: on pone, with a due regard to my own character, could I have said


We do not envy or covet the feelings of the Edinburgh reviewer, when he reads the indignant and triumphant pages of Dr. Lingard's Vindication. His punishment reminds us of the end of the story of Mordecai—“So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai !"

We regret much that the widely circulated pages of the Edinburgh Review should have been used for the unworthy purpose of these dishonest and vindictive articles on Dr. Lingard. We do not say that the detection of their spirit or falsehood was easy, when the writer so plausibly coloured his representations, and entrenched them behind such a parade of authorities. But surely two articles on a History of England, singling out for their sole examination and animadversion, two isolated circumstances, one in Saxon times, the other of French history, ought to have excited a suspicion that all was not right. Our brethren will do well to attend to the following advice of Dr. Lingard

“ Reviewers should always bear in mind, that it is a dangerous experiment to sport with the public credulity. They hold office durante bene placito: as long as they fairly exhibit the merits and demerits of the writers, whom they call before their tribunal, they may be assured of support. But if they allow prejudice to guide their pens, if they make their pages subservient to private antipathies and resentments; if, under the pretence of diffusing information, they chiefly seek to injure the character of a supposed adversary; they violate the first of their duties, they break their word to their readers, and they infallibly forfeit, as they deserve to forfeit, the confidence of the public.”

ROYAL INSTITUTION. The Conversazioni, or weekly evening meetings of the members, commenced for the season on Friday, January 26th, and they have continued to excite great interest in the scientific and literary circles, and to be most numerously frequented : the assembly of Friday last being attended by nearly two hundred persons, many of them of high distinction. The Duke of Somerset was present, it being the first meeting since his election as president.

In one of Mr. Brande's opening lectures, he has so well illustrated the good that may arise from this new arrangement of the Royal Institution, that we cannot do better than use his words :

“ One feature of our constitution seems to me so important that I cannot overlook it. I mean the weekly meetings of our members, which are particularly characterized by a mutual friendly interchange of information; and at which, he that is so fortunate as to have any pew discovery to impart, any new views to disclose, or any illustrations of art or science to offer, may explain and illustrate them to an audience destitute of critical severity, free from all feelings of jealousy and rivalship, unrestricted by useless forms and obsolete ceremonies, and always, as experience instructs me seriously to believe, ready, able, and willing to assist and promote the views of those who come forward, and thankfully to receive the information which they im part.

6. This feature of our Institution seems to me a very important one, and I trust that the expectations of its benefits and advantages which I have ventured to hold out, will be more than realized; and that that which has begun so auspiciously, will continue to thrive: that such intercourse will tend to remove those petty jealousies and hurtful feelings of ill-will, which badly regulated minds are so apt to feel when they witness the success of contemporaries and the progress of rivals; and, in short, lead to one general independent feeling,--that of an earnest desire for the welfare of science, the promotion of literature, and the perfection and extension of the arts.”

The nature of these meetings may not be perfectly understood, and it may, therefore, be as well to premise that the members and their friends assemble on Friday evenings, at half-past eight o'clock, in the library of the Institution, the tables being covered with various novelties or curiosities in science, literature, and the arts, for the purpose of inviting agreeable discussion. At nine o'clock, they adjourn to the great lecture-room, where some subject of novelty or interest is familiarly treated, the discourse being limited to half an hour; at the expiration of which, the company return to the conversation-room, to partake of the refreshments of tea and coffee, and separate about eleven o'clock.

We shall briefly state the subjects hitherto discussed at these evening meetings this season :

Friday, January 26.-Mr. Faraday illustrated the magnetic effects produced by metals when in motion. In the library were exhibited a new ornamental revolving lamp by Mr. Bartholemew: Mr. Blackadder's capillary wick'd lamp. Specimens of dried plants prepared by the Shakers in North America. Various valuable books presented by the Duke of Buckingham, Mr. Stanley Smith, the Horticultural Society, &c. &c.

PRINCE Eugene AND MARSHAL Boufflers. I went back to the siege of Lisle ; but what a change! The marshal had taken advantage of my absence to drive the besiegers from the first covered way, of which I had left them in possession. After regaining it, as well as the other posts that had been abandoned, I wrote as following to the brave Boufflers : “ The French army, M. Le Marechal, has retired towards Tournay, the elector of Bavaria to Namur, and the princes to their courts. Spare yourself and your brave garrison, I will again sign whatever you please.” His answer was: “ There is yet no occasion to be in a hurry. Permit me to defend myself as long as I can. I have still enough left to do to render myself more worthy of the esteem of the man whom I respect above all others." I gave orders for the assault of the second covered way. The king of France apparently anticipated this, for he wrote to the marshal to surrender. Notwithstanding his repugnance to such a step, he was on the point of obeying, when, in a note which the duke of Burgundy had subjoined to the king's letter, he read : “ I know from a certain quarter that they want to make you a prisoner of war." I know not where he picked up this information; but that prince, respectable as he was in peace, could neither say nor do any but foolish things in war. This note, however, produced some impression for a moment. Generals, soldiers, and all, swore rather to perish in the breach. Boufflers wept for joy, as I have been told; and when on the point of embracing this alternative, he recollected my note, which got the better of the duke of Burgundy's; and after the trenches had been opened four months before the city and citadel, he sent me on the 18th of December all the articles which he wished me to sigo, which I did without any restriction. I went very soon with the prince of Orange to pay bim a visit, and in truth to do homage to his merit. I cordially embraced him, and accepted an invitation to sapper ; * on condition," said I, “ that it be that of a famished citadel, to see what yon may eat without an express order from the king." Roasted borse flesh was set before us ; the epicures in my suite were far from relishing the joke, but were quickly consoled by the arrival of provisions from the city, on which we made an excellent repast.—Memoirs of Prince Eugene of Savoy-Autobiography.

A curious SPECIES OF MUD-risu.—T'he river appears to abound with fish, particularly with mullet; and porpoises were observed as high as the first falls, a distance of fifty miles from the sea. A curious species of mud-fish (chironectes, sp. Cuvier) was noticed, of amphibious nature, and something similar to what we have frequently before seen ; these were, however, much larger, being about nine inches long. At low water, the mud-banks near the cascade, that were exposed by the falling tide, were covered with these fish, sporting about, and running at each other with open mouths; but as we approached, they so instantaneously buried themselves in the soft mud, that their disappearance seemed the effect of magic: upon our retiring and attentively watching the spot, these curious animals would re-appear as suddenly as they had before vanished. We fired at several, but so sudden were their motions, that they generally escaped ; two or three only were procured, which appeared from their lying on the mud in an inactive state to have been asleep; they are furnished with very strong pectoral and ventral fins, with which and with the anal fin, when required, they make a hole, into which they drop. When sporting on the mud, the pectoral fins are used like legs, upon which they move very quickly, but nothing can exceed the instantaneous movement by which they disappear. Those that were shot were taken on board, but on account of the extreme heat of the weather, they had become so putrified as to be totally unfit for preservation.-King's Australia.

A SCENE AT COLLEGE.-—In this vacation my finances running rather low, I numbered myself with those pupils ; and that I might the more conveniently receive them, was desirous of getting into more commodious and spacious apartments. I therefore applied for the empty rooms of a fellow.commoner. The Deputy Ductor, Mr. Evans, at once gave me leave to enter them, but the bed-maker, who had the key thereof, resolutely resisted the application, saying she had received strict orders from her absent master to give up the keys to no one. This being a very common practice, and the woman exceedingly abusive, not only to myself, but also to a friend who accompanied me to her house, I was resolved to bring her before the authorities. To the bishop I therefore applied, by a note sent by Jem Saunders, the coal porter, who was occasionally my deputy gyp, as honest a John-Bullish lump of simplicity as you would meet with in a day's journey. The bishop sends Jem. Saunders forthwith for the culprit, Mary Baxter, who declined waiting upon his lordship, rather unceremoniously requiring a regular footman to serve the summons upon her. The bishop sends the said footman, and requests the attendance of all the parties interested in the trial about to commence. At the upper end of the spacious council-room of the lodge, which is furnished MARCH, 1827.

2 F

« PreviousContinue »