consists in living from hand to mouth, and refusing to look either behind or before-those who put names and formulæ in the place of facts-those who see in the world only courts and diplomatists, and who shut their eyes to the existence of nations-are exactly the men whose wisest forebodings have the strongest gift of remaining unfulfilled. And now it may be asked, if we wish to give our studies this practical turn, if we wish our examination of the past to supply us with a real teaching of experience for the present and the future, over what range of time are our researches to be spread? I answer, over the whole range of the history of man as a political being. In other words, we can acknowledge no limit which would shut out any period of the history of Aryan man on European soil. Let Birmingham set the example which is so deeply needed in older seats of historical study. Let there be one spot where history shall be studied, but where the delusive words "ancient" and "modern" shall never be heard. You are not far from Rugby; some echoes of the voice of Arnold may have reached you. You may have picked up some fragments of the teaching which that great master put forth with so clear a voice, but in which he has found so few disciples. To some he lives in his personal memory; to me he lives only in his writings. But it was from those writings that I first learned that history was one, that it could be rightly learned only by casting aside artificial and unnatural distinctions, and by grasping the great though simple truth, that the history of European man is one unbroken tale. That history is one unbroken series of cause and effect, no part of which can be rightly understood if any other part is wholly shut out from the survey. Let there be one spot where the vain formulæ of "ancient" and "modern" history, of "dead" and "living" languages, shall be forever unknown. Take in the simple fact that the so-called "ancients" were not beings of some other order-perhaps demi-gods surrounded by superhuman mystery, perhaps benighted savages who knew not the art of getting up good colliery accidents, perhaps mere names which seem to lie beyond the range of

46

Be

human interest of any kind-but that they were men, men of like passions with ourselves, capable of the same faults and the same virtues-men, too, of kindred speech, of kindred blood-kinsmen simply further removed in time and place than some other kinsmen, but whose deeds, and sayings, and writings are as full of practical teaching for us. as are the deeds and sayings and writings of the men who trod our own soil. fore the great discoveries of modern science-before that greatest of all its discoveries which has revealed to us the unity of Aryan speech, Aryan religion, and Aryan political life-the worn-out superstitions about "ancient" and "modern" ought to pass by like the spectres of darkness. Does any of you specially give his mind to so-called ancient studies, to the study of old Greece or of old Italy? Does any man reproach such an one with wasting his time on studies which are unpractical, because they are "ancient ?'' Let him answer, in the spirit of Arnold, that his studies are pre-eminently practical, because they are pre-eminently modern. Does any man give his mind specially to the tongues of old Greece and of old Italy? Does any man reproach him with devoting himself to the study of tongues which are dead? Let him answer, in the same spirit, but with a depth of life and knowledge on which men in Arnold's day had hardly entered, that he gives his mind to those tongues, because they are of all tongues the most truly living. Grasp well the truth that the history of old Greece, of old Italy, is simply an earlier part of the same tale as the history of our own island. Grasp well the truth that the worthies of those older times, the men who strove for freedom at Athens, in Achaia, and at Rome, were forerunners and fellow-workers of the men who have fought, and who are still fighting, the same battle among ourselves. The Acta Sanctorum of political progress is imperfect if we leave out its earliest chapters. We must remember Periklês and Titmoleôn, Aratos and Philopoimên, Caius Licinius and Tiberius Gracchus, alongside of our Godwines and our Simons, our Hampdens and our Chathams, our Washingtons and our Hamiltons, and their compeers of our

own day whom I will not name. But some one will say, What can great kingdoms, great confederations, under a northern sky, learn from small city commonwealths under a southern sky? Much every way; if only this, that we may learn how many different shapes that which is essentially the same may take under varying circumstances of time and place. No fact, no period, in history can exactly reproduce any earlier fact or period, if only because that fact or period has already gone before it. Between a great kingdom under a northern sky and a small commonwealth under a southern sky there are many and important differences. But there may be none the less much essential likeness, and it is the business of historical science at once to note the differences, and to dig through to the likeness that underlies them. The range of our political vision becomes wider when the application of the comparative method sets before us the ekklesia of Athens, the comitia of Rome, as institutions, not merely analogous, but absolutely the same thing, parts of the same common Aryan heritage, as the ancient assemblies of our own land. We carry on the tale as we see that it is out of those assemblies that our modern parliaments, our modern courts of justice, our modern public gatherings of every kind, have grown. And we feel yet more the unbroken tie when we mark that they have all grown by constant and endless changes of detail, but with no break in the long succession, no moment when, as in some other lands, one kind of assembly was consciously set aside, and another kind of assembly consciously established in its place. Our very local nomenclature puts on a new life, if, here in Birmingham, the home of the Beormingas, a spot of conquered British soil bearing the name of the Teutonic gens which won it, we remember that we brought with us from our old homes a system of political and family life essentially the same as that of Athens and of Rome. We had our gentes, our curia, our tribes; and they have, like those of the elder nations, left their names on the soil which we made our own. As a portion of old Roman soil took the name of the great gens of the Claudii, so a portion of An

glian, of Mercian, soil took the name of the gens of the Beormingas. Only, while the Claudian gens, as a gens, remained far more famous than the local division which bore the Claudian name, the home of the Beormingas has certainly become far more famous than the Beormingas themselves.

But some will say, Can a man learn all history, from the first glimmerings of political history in old Greece to the last political question of our own day? I trow not, if by learning is meant mastering thoroughly in detail from original sources. Life is too short for any such universal mastery, even if a man gives his whole life to studying history and nothing else. Still less can those do so who have many other things to do besides studying history. But, on the other hand, when I speak of learning, I do not mean the getting up a mere smattering of the whole story and knowing no part thoroughly in detail. I say this, Let each historical student choose for minute study some period or periods, according as his taste or his objects may lead him. Let those periods be late, let them be early; let them be the very earliest or the very latest; best of all, perhaps, let there be one early and one late. Let him master such period or periods, thoroughly, minutely, from original sources. But let him, besides this special knowledge of a part, know well the general outline of the whole. Let him learn enough of those parts of history which lie outside his own special subject to put periods and events in their true relation to one another. By learning some periods of history thoroughly, minutely, from original sources, he will gain a power which will stand him in good stead, even in those periods which he is driven to learn more slightly from secondary sources. He will gain a kind of tact which will enable him to judge which secondary sources may be trusted and which may not.

Let us for a moment apply these doctrines to the great question of the day, the question of the fate of South-eastern Europe, the question whether the New Rome shall be European or Asiatic, whether the church of Justinian shall be a temple of Christendom or of Islam. It is not my business here to decide for

either side. Those are questions on which it would be unbecoming in the President of your Historical Society to do more than point out facts, and to leave others to draw inferences. I say only that, in order to form an opinion either way, a man must have some general notion of the facts of the case, and that the facts of the case go back a good many centuries. I do not set much store by the opinion of the man who asked whether there were any Christians in South-eastern Europe besides a few nomad tribes." I do not set much store by the opinion of the man who wrote in a book that in the ninth cen tury the Russians attacked Constantinople, but found the Turks too strong for them. Nor do I greatly value his judgment who held it for certain that every British ship that sailed to India must pass under the walls of Constantinople. To understand these matters, we must go a little further than this. Nor will it do to go back to times two thousand years ago, and then to leap from two thousand years ago to our own time. The nations of South-eastern Europe are, for good and for evil, what the long intermediate time has made them. The greatest of all witnesses to the unity of history is the long-abiding drama of the Eastern power of Rome. I counselled you just now not to neglect the study of the early commonwealths of Greece; but from the early commonwealths of Greece we must go on. The great work of Greece, in the general history of the world, was to make the Eastern half of the Roman world practically Greek. The throne of the old Rome was moved to a Greek city, and the New Rome, the city of Constantine, became the centre at once of Roman dominion and of Greek intellectual life. Bear in mind how, for age after age, Constantinople stood as the bulwark of Europe and of Christendom, bearing up on one side against the Persian, the Saracen, and the Turk, on the other side against the Slave, the Avar, and the Bulgarian. Her Asiatic rivals could only remain as abiding enemies, to be driven back from her walls and her empire, till in the end one of them was to force in his way as a conqueror from without. The Persian and the Saracen strove in vain for the prize; the Ottoman won it at last,

to rule as an Asiatic in Europe, to remain, five hundred years after his landing, as much a stranger as on the day when he first came in. But the European rivals could be more or less thoroughly changed into disciples; they could accept the faith, they could imitate the models, they could in some cases adopt the language of the power which, even in attacking, they reverenced. In the long and stirring tale of the battle which Constantinople waged for Europe, we see the Roman power become Greek; as it becomes more definitely Greek, we see the other older nations of the peninsula, the Albanians and Roumans, long merged with the Greeks in the general mass of subjects of the Empire, stand forth again as distinct nations, playing their part among the nations from the eleventh century to the nineteenth. Long before this we have seen the Slavonic invaders of the Empire, half its conquerors, half its disciples, spread themselves over the inland regions of the Balkan peninsula, while the Greek keeps the coasts and the islands. Presently, in the other great peninsula of Asia, the Turk, wholly a conqueror, in no sense a disciple, spreads himself over the inland regions, while the Greek there too keeps the coasts and islands. At last, step by step, the Empire and its European neighbors come under the power of the Asiatic invader. The European invader came to conquer, to settle, but at the same time to learn and to imitate. The Asiatic invader came simply to destroy. He came, neither to merge himself in the nationality of the conquered, nor to win over the conquered to his nationality, but to abide for ages as a stranger, holding the nations of the land in bondage in their own land. At last a time comes when the enslaved nations feel a new strength, a new call to freedom. This and that part of those nations, here and there, throw off the foreign yoke; they set up free and national governments on their own soil, and they seek to extend the freedom which they themselves have won to their brethren who remain in bondage. Here are the facts, facts which cannot be grasped, except by taking a somewhat wider view of history than is implied in the wellworn course of old Greece, old Rome,

modern England, modern France. But I state the facts only this evening. I leave others to draw the inferences. Some deem that it is for the general good of mankind, for the special interest of this island, that the Mussulman Asiatic should reign over the Christian European; that nations struggling to be free should be kept down as bondmen on their own soil. Many deem that it is a specially honorable and patriotic course, specially agreeable to the feelings and duties of a free people, to help to keep them in their bondage. Some think otherwise. They think, as the old Greek thought, that freedom is a brave thing; they are led to sympathize

with nations striving for freedom rather than with the foreign oppressor who holds them under his yoke. They think that to give help to the cause of those struggling nations is in itself a worthy work; that it is a work specially becoming a free people; that it is a work, above all, becoming a free people who, as they hold, have promised to do it. Here are two ways of looking at a great question, neither of which way is of much value unless it is grounded on knowledge of the facts. It is not for me to say here which inference is the right one. I can say only, study the facts, and judge for yourselves.-Fortnightly Review.

CAMPBELL was an unsuccessful candidate for Stafford at the General Election of 1826. The death of one of the members within the year made a fresh opening, but instead of renewing the contest, he sent (he says) the electors a candidate, Mr. Beaumont, that the world might see what Stafford is, and not blame him for relinquishing it.

"On his entering the town by way of foretaste, he gave a 1 Bank of England note to every voter who applied for it; and he soon distributed as many bank-notes as there are voters in the place. They put them in their hats, and openly paraded the streets with them by way of cockades. No credit would be given for voting-money for more than five minutes after the vote was given. Having voted, the voter had a card, which he carried to an adjoining public-house, and which instantly produced him eight guineas. When the election was over, Beaumont, in a public oration, told them that he had obtained their suffrages by means perhaps not altogether constitutional, but he hoped the money would do them good, and be of service to their families-upon which they loudly cheered him."

The interval between the death of Lord Liverpool and the Premiership of Canning was an agitating time for Campbell. It was upon the cards, he thinks, that he might have been Solicitor-General, i.e. in case the Great Seal had been conferred on his father-in-law. Scarlett simply became Attorney-General, and the principal benefit derived by Camp

bell in the professional move was the long-coveted silk gown, which, after another delay originating with Brougham, he received in June, 1827. His enjoy. ment of his new dignity will excite a smile, but the naïveté with which his feelings are laid bare constitutes the main attraction of the book:

"I continue to enjoy my rank much more than I expected. The very convenience of sitting where I now am is to be envied. Instead of being jostled and elbowed by stuff gowns and sergeants from the Common Pleas, here I sit in state-at this moment no one within a yard of me on either side. When I present myself at the door of the court the usher says, Make way.' A lane is formed,

I sail in, strike my flag to the Chief Justice, and take part in the line of battle as a firstrate."

The resignation of Lord Goderich principally affects him through the perplexity in which it places Scarlett, who resigns the Attorney-Generalship, but resumes it in the course of the following year (June, 1823), on the resignation of Sir Charles Wetherell.

In 1828 Campbell is named a member of the Commission for the Reform of Real Property, and he had the offer of a Puisne Judgeship in 1829. He stands for Stafford again in 1830, and is returned his political principles, or rather the side he is to take, being far from clear, notwithstanding his election at

Brooks's. His doubts are removed by the passage in the King's Speech referring to Belgium, and the declaration of the Duke of Wellington against Reform. "My part was taken, and I resolved to form a close alliance with those who were to stand up for the liberties of mankind." Yet he takes his seat on what he terms neutral ground, the crossbench on the Ministerial side, and distrusts both parties.

“November 4.—As far as politics are concerned nothing can be more calamitous than my situation, or more melancholy than my prospects. The Duke of Wellington seems disposed to establish an ultra-Tory Government which I cannot support with honor, and the leaders of Opposition are hurrying the country to confusion and ruin.”

He thinks that he should have been appointed Solicitor-General on the formation of the Whig Government but for the underhand opposition of Brougham, who disliked everybody connected with Scarlett, and it was as an independent member that he was present at the introduction of the Reform Bill, which startles him.

"March 2, 1831 (to his Brother).-You must be Radical indeed if Ministers have not satisfied you! We are quite appalled! There is not the remotest chance of such a bill being carried by this or any House of Commons. You may anticipate the consequence.'

*

**

*

*

*

*

"I am invited to-day to meet the Duke of Wellington at Scarlett's. I am not sorry that I have a good excuse to be absent. There is no leader with whom I can associate myself, and I care not how soon I am hors de combat."

At the same time he dreads the consequences of throwing out the bill, and feels inclined, as a choice of evils, to support and even to speak in favor of it.

March 3.-I was absent from the House two hours last night to meet the duke at dinner. He was very good-humored and unaffected, and laughed like any ordinary man at the dismay of the borough patrons.

"I returned to the House as soon as the ladies had withdrawn, among whom was the pretty and pensioned Mrs. Arbuthnot."

On the 5th he reports that the measure takes very much with the country; on the roth, that Ministers certainly have the country with them; on the

"I

On the second reading of the bill he "somewhat impudently' took possession of a vacant place on the Treasury Bench, and after two vain attempts managed to catch the Speaker's eye. spoke about an hour without breaking down or being coughed down. I can say no more, but this is something, and better than if I had not spoken at all."

He was complimented by Jeffrey, who accounted for the coldness with which the speech was received by the disposition of the House. He had learned that nothing is much applauded unless personal attacks. They will listen to reasoning, but they will not applaud it." Campbell of Islay desired to be introduced to him, and told him that he was the first Campbell that ever spoke in the House of Commons more than a quarter of an hour.

'He and I are the only two of the clan in this Parliament. It is a curious fact that all Irishmen are eloquent and Scotchmen very rarely. I partly ascribe it to our not speaking the English language in our infancy and boyhood, and something to the genius of the country lying in a different line.

His style of speaking was not calculated for political conflict in excited times, but he commanded a fair share of attention when he introduced the bills founded on the Reports of the Real Property Commission, and he gradually came to be considered a useful ally or supporter in the solid argumentative part of a debate, especially when legal knowledge was in request. He is made Solicitor-General on Denman's elevation to the Chief Justiceship (November, 1832), and returned for Dudley in the new Parliament. He was now quite at ease about the Reform Bill, having been (he