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 sensyal 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.

We have a remarkable instance in cur own country, where the nation was wofully deceived, by attributing despatches to a distinguished General, who, as it was afterwards discovered-was utterly incapable of writing a correct letter.

That Marlborough wrote his own dispatches is greatly to be doubted; and when we remember that he entered the army at twelve, it is impossible to believe that "he was a proficient in Latin, French and English composition;" on the other hand, that his education must necessarily have been limited, on account of his poverty and his entering the army at such an early age, and that he did not spell well as stated by Lord Macaulay, is not only probable, but doubtless entirely

true.

We come now to examine the charge that "he was kept by the most profuse, imperious, and shameless of harlots," which seems to shock the nerves of this anonymous writer; and also to the charge that he was materially assisted by "the infamous wages bestowed upon him by the Duchess of Cleveland." The article in Blackwood does not pretend to deny the truth of these charges, but pleads "the dissipations of the court of Charles II., his remarkably handsome person and his engaging manners" as an excuse for his dissoluteness.

That circumstances sometimes palliate vices is undoubtedly true, but no circumstances can change vice into virtue; nor can an Historian be justified in softening gross licentiousness, by the blandishments and charms of refined and elegant rhetoric.

No sane man will deny that the Duchess of Cleveland was a "shameless harlot," and Lord Macaulay could not have chosen a more suitable expression to convey to the reader, the true character of this beautiful but infamous woman.

Her position at the court of Charles was of such an exalted nature, that in her illicit amours she was the chooser and not the chosen of her many lovers; and Lord Macaulay emphatically states the truth, when he says that Marlborough was kept by this shameless harlot." That she aided him with her purse is not

66

denied, in fact the article fully admits both charges to be true, the only difference between the two writers consisting in the fact that Lord Macaulay calls things by their right names, whilst the Blackwood writer, with a spurious parade of delicacy uses such language as is patent to those, who think that refined vice does not deserve to be condemned in equal terms with vice of a grosser na

ture.

Lord Macaulay says that Marlborough was "kept by the most profuse, imperious, and shameless of harlots,” and that he derived material aid from "the infa mous wages bestowed upon him by the Duchess of Cleveland." The article in Blackwood, p. 663, admits that "she, (Duchess of Cleveland,) was as liberal of her purse as of her person, and Marlborough, a needy ensign, no doubt shared both."

Reader, can you see

Any difference 'twixt,
"Tweedledum and Tweedledee."

We pass on now to the charge of Lord Macaulay, that Marlborough “was insatiable of riches," a charge which has been sustained by the universal verdict of mankind. We propose, however, to adduce such evidence as will satisfy every candid reader of his avarice, a vice that had a more controlling influence on Marlborough's character than any other-a vice which terminated only with his life.

He is said to have kept "heaps of broad pieces," untouched, in his private drawers, until he was an old man. See Pope in Spence's Anecdotes.

We have the testimony, also, of the authors of the Pictorial History of England as to his avarice, which exactly coincides with the statements of Lord Macaulay.

On p. 148, Book IX, Pictorial History of England, London edition, occurs these words, which require no comment from us:-"We shall never go far wrong in attributing base and selfish motives to this renowned hero (Marlborough), whose whole life was one continued comment on the text-Help Yourself." In the same history and same book, p. 260, in speak

ing of the charge against Marlborough, of reserving two and a half per cent. of the pay of the foreign troops, the following language is used:-"that Marlborough, in his inordinate appetite for money, had made the most of these sources of revenue."

In the "Political and Literary Anecdotes of his Own Times," by Dr. William King, occurs the following passage on p. 101: "That great Captain, the Duke of Marlborough, when he was in the last stage of life, and very infirm, would walk from the public room in Bath to his lodgings, in a cold, dark night, to save sixpence in chair hire. If the Duke, who left at his death more than a million and a half sterling, could have foreseen that all his wealth and honours were to be inherited by a grand-son of my Lord Trevor's, who had been one of his enemies, would he have been so careful to save sixpence for the sake of his heir? Not for the sake of his heir; but he would always have saved sixpence."

It is a fact too well known to all readers of English History to render it necessary to cite proof, that at the time of the settlement of the annuity upon the Princess Anne, she was instigated by the Marlboroughs to demand an enormous sum for those times, and that the Duchess boasted that "the success of the affair was chiefly imputed to the steadiness and diligence of my Lord Marlborough and herself." She also admits that she received a thousand pounds of the sum; but it is more than probable that this is but a small amount of what she really did obtain.

Mr. S. G. Goodrich-better known as Peter Parley-in his Child's History of England, says, in speaking of Marlboborough's fall in 1711: "The Tories were desirous of peace, and they could not effect their wishes so long as Marlborough retained any power, for it was believed, and his well-known avarice gave some foundation for the belief, that all his influence would be exerted to continue the war, that he might retain his lucrative offices." The writer in Blackwood endeavors to invalidate the testimony

phlet printed in 1690-on account of the violent Jacobite principles of that book.

This testimony would not, we confess, be sufficient, uncorroborated by more reliable evidence, to satisfy us of the charge of avarice against Marlborough; but we have other proof of the truth of the charge, as we have already shown, which goes to strengthen the testimony of the "Dear Bargain."

The authorities we have quoted must have drawn their information from other sources than the "Dear Bargain," for the author in Blackwood virtually admits that there was in all probability but one copy extant of this pamphlet. He says: "We searched the rich store of the British Museum, we applied to friends noted all over the world for their extensive knowledge in the by-paths of history, we sought the assistance of those whose business it is to collect and vend scarce tracts and pamphlets-all in vain." He finally, however, discovers a copy, doubtless the same copy used by Lord Macaulay, but does not reap, as we conceive, any benefit from so arduous a search; for while many of the statements in the "Dear Bargain" may be and doubtless are false, yet we cannot refuse to believe its testimony as to Marlborough's avarice, especially when that testimony is corroborated by others, who, it is almost certain, never saw a copy of the "Dear Bargain."

The Blackwood article exultingly parades Marlborough's refusal to accept the government of the Netherlands, with an income of £60,000 a year, as a proof of his disinterestedness in money matters. That there were good reasons, sufficiently obvious to every one conversant with the history of those times, to prevent Marlborough from accepting so hazardous an appointment, need not be suggested.

It is said that there is sometimes "method in madness," and we may, with equal truth, assert that there is sometimes "method" in avarice and selfishness; and if that "method" was ever perfected in two individuals, it certainly was in Marlborough and his wife.

With one more quotation from the Pictorial History of England, Book IX, p.