191-'.] HISTORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 73 



and it is far inferior in intellect, keenness and humor to the style of 

 Mr. Charles Francis Adams. But Mr. Trevelyan is a delightful 

 master of telling idioms, and clever phrasing, which have placed him 

 where he is in English literature. 



He is a distinguished member of the English liberal party and 

 this with his natural sympathy for that party's predecessors, the old 

 whigs and for his picturesque relative, combined with the necessity 

 for not saying anything to impair modern British control of colonies, 

 forces his book into the most narrow form of the Weems minis- 

 terial explanation. 



As an attack upon the tory ministry of that period, nothing prob- 

 ably will ever equal the accumulated force, the massing of details, 

 the sweeping condemnation and the charm of language of Mr. Treve- 

 lyan's work. The unfortunate ministry is overwhelmed and buried 

 under a mass of disapprobation that exceeds in weight and volume 

 all that Fox and all that all the other whig orators ever said against 

 them. Every fact, every inference, every delicate insinuation that 

 lapse of time, historical perspective and the labor of years can bring 

 together, is heaped upon them. Their depravity, malignity, and stu- 

 pidity are unspeakable, especially when contrasted with the enlight- 

 ened virtue and perfection of Fox and the whigs. It is perfectly 

 obvious that the American colonies were lost merely by the peculiar 

 circumstances of the cruelty and absurdity of this extraordinary min- 

 istry, the like of which in infamy has never been known before or 

 since. That is all there is in the American Revolution ; and it is also 

 quite evident that if the plans of Fox and the whigs had been carried 

 out those affectionate and long-suffering colonists who dearly loved 

 the British empire would have remained in it in some ideal and 

 friendly relation, which is not definitely described. 



Mr. Trevelyan is not impressed by the difference between the 

 original contemporary evidence and the subsequent innumerable 

 commentaries or secondary authorities. He cites one as readily as 

 the other ; and his investigations into the original evidence appear 

 to have been very moderate. He ignores the greater part of it. 

 The secondary authorities suit him better, because they support the 

 ministerial explanation. Except for the descriptions of English 



