what motives prompted the author, our object at present being an examination of the article itself, with a view of pointing out the animus of the writer as well as the untruthfulness of the inferences he has drawn.

The author sets out with an imputation upon Lord Macaulay, by accusing him of partiality in describing the amours of James II. and the Prince of Orange.

He says, p. 661, "James and William were alike unfaithful to their wives. Lord Macaulay records the highly criminal' passion of James for Arabella Churchill and for Catharine Sedley, sneering contemptuously at the plain features of the one, and the lean form and haggard countenance of the other, &c., &c. William, on the other hand, married to a young, beautiful and faithful wife, to whose devotion he owed a crown, in return for which she only asked the affection which he had withheld from her for years, maintained during the whole of his married life, an illicit connection with Elizabeth Villiers, who squinted abominably, and Lord Macaulay passes it over as an instance of the commerce of superior minds."

Let us look a little more closely into this matter and see how the case stands. To compare James and William together would be worse than folly, for no two men differed so essentially as these two monarchs. James, weak, heartless, mean, selfish, a tyrant and a coward, was incapable of receiving emotions other than of a sensual nature; and even in his sensual appetites, was incapable of appreciating those beauties which usually captivate the purely sensual man.

William, on the other hand, though apparently of a cold and plegmatic temperament, was capable and gave evidence of feelings of the warmest friendship and deepest love. That he loved his wife with an intensity of affection rarely equalled, is proved by his terrible agony of distress at her death, a distress that was nearly fatal to himself and perhaps to the destinies of England. That there was perfect harmony and conjugal affection between William and Mary, from the time they ascended the throne of England to her death, no one at all familiar with

English History can for a moment doubt.

William, in his intercourse with Elizabeth Villiers-illicit and highly improper as that intercourse was-never violated the common decencies of life; he never furnished apartments in his Palace, more sumptuous than those occupied by his Queen, for his mistress, as James did for Catharine Sedley.

Improper as William's intercourse with Elizabeth Villiers undoubtedly was, Lord Macaulay is unquestionably right in drawing a marked distinction between the amorous propensities of the two men, and we think every impartial reader will sustain the view he has taken.

But it is not true that Lord Macaulay palliates William's unfaithfulness to his wife: the following extract speaks for itself.

He says, on p. 133, Vol. II, Harpers Edition, History of England, "for a time William was a negligent husband. He was indeed drawn away from his wife by other women, particularly by one of her ladies, Elizabeth Villiers, who, though destitute of personal attractions, and disfigured by a hideous squint, possessed talents which well fitted her to partake his He was indeed ashamed of his errors, and spared no pains to conceal them but, in spite of all his precautions, Mary well knew that he was not strictly faithful to her.

cares.

"Spies and tale bearers, encouraged by her father, did their best to inflame her resentment. A man of a very different character, the excellent Ken, who was her chaplain at the Hague during some months, was so much incensed by her wrongs that he, with more zeal than discretion, threatened to reprimand her husband severely. She, however, bore her injuries with a meekness and patience which deserved, and gradually obtained, William's esteem and gratitude."

Now, we appeal to the reader, if disapprobation of William's conduct could be more clearly indicated. Lord Macaulay speaks of Mary's injuries, of her meekness under these injuries, of William's being ashamed of these errors, (was James ever ashamed of any thing he ever did?) and of the good and excellent Bishop

Ken being highly exasperated with him on account of Mary's wrongs; surely this is sufficient to show his utter disapprobation of William's conduct, and by no means indicates a desire on the part of Lord Macaulay, to palliate his short comings in this particular.

There was a necessity in narrating the history of James and his reign, to speak frequently and ever harshly of his two most prominent mistresses, because of their intimate connection with the history of James and his acts, which could not clearly be explained otherwise. But in William's case there was no such necessity, there was no serious difficulty between William and Mary on this subject, especially after the Revolution, and it may even be seriously questioned whether an illicit intercourse, to any great extent, existed between William and Elizabeth Villiers, after William's elevation to the English throne. So precarious was his health, so feeble his constitution, so onerous his duties, so frequent his absences from England and so quiet and distant from London was his residence at Kensington, that it is physically impossible that his intercourse with Elizabeth Villiers after the Revolution, could have been either frequent or of an open and scandalous character.

The chief design, however, of the article in the June No. of Blackwood, is to stigmatize the character which Lord Macaulay has drawn of Marlborough, as false, unscrupulous and repulsive; accusing Lord Macaulay of “habitual inaccuracy," 'gross perversions," "outrageous abuse," and "personal rancour." This is certainly strong language; language, not justified by a single page in the History of England; and language that should not have appeared on the pages of Blackwood, in connection with so distinguished a name as that of Thomas Babington Macaulay.

Let us now carefully examine the evidence upon which such grave charges are made, and see who is the perverter of facts, who indulges in "filth" from "Grub Street" and "St. Giles's," and whether Lord Macaulay has or has not given substantially a true picture of Marlborough.

Skilled as the author of the article in Blackwood evidently is, in all the arts of sophistry and Jesuitical casuistry, and artfully as he has grouped together his inferences and facts; he has not only failed to substantiate his position, but even by his reluctant admissions, has corroborated the statements of Lord Macaulay in regard to the duplicity, avarice and venality of Marlborough.

On p. 662, Blackwood for June, we find the following words: "Lord Macaulay's picture of the youth of Marlborough is sufficiently repulsive. He was so illiterate that he could not spell the most common words in his own language.' He was thrifty in his very vices, and levied ample contributions on ladies enriched by the spoils of more liberal lovers.' He was kept by the most profuse, imperious, and shameless of harlots.' He subsisted upon 'the infamous wages bestowed upon him by the Duchess of Cleveland.' He was 'insatiable of riches.' He was one of the few who have in the bloom of youth loved lucre more than wine or women.' 'All the precious gifts which nature had lavished upon him, he valued chiefly for what they would fetch.' 'At twenty he made money of his beauty and his vigour; at sixty he made money of his genius and his glory;' and he 'owed his rise to his sister's dishonour.'"

These are a portion of the charges Lord Macaulay is accused of falsely bring. ing against Marlborough; although they are violently wrested from their appropriate contexts and skilfully and ungenerously arranged, they are nevertheless by the writer's own admission and the reliable testimony of contemporaneous and subsequent writers literally true in every particular.

The only evidence that is offered in the article in Blackwood to controvert the statement that his education was deficient, is contained in the assertion that "his dispatches show that, at any rate, he was a proficient in Latin, French and English composition."

If any fact is authenticated it is this, that Generals are rarely capable of writing, and if capable, rarely have the time to write, their dispatches.