138 
feelings, takes up again the same candid 
strain. 
“¢ Doubtless,”’ says he, ‘such a deter- 
mined cry as this is terrible ; but when the 
historian blames the grand reprisals of the 
weak against the strong—of the victim 
against his daily and hourly oppressor, he 
might spare a few words of compassion— 
he might be excused for an occasional exe- 
eration of murder, robbery, violation, and 
every species of atrocity, though committed 
‘by gentlemen. This partiality, however, is 
‘a vice of the time, like all the other defects 
of Froissart, and we must not exact of an 
author more than he was able to perform. 
Each historian has placed history where it 
existed in his own time. Joinville, in the 
crusades; Froissart, in the feudal and 
English wars; Comines, in the political 
intrigues, and the able and cruel usurpa- 
tions, of Louis XI. Brantome among the 
great men, the parties and the manners, 
which the struggles of the Reformation 
brought into view; the Cardinal de Retz in 
the saloon, the parliament, the court, the 
market—in short, in every scene of fraud ; 
Dangeau, in the Gil de Beuf; Velly, 
Daniel, Anquctil, and all the general his- 
torians of the era of monarchy, in the court 
of the prince ; and, in our own days, M. de 
Sismondi has placed it in the nation of 
which he is tracing the existence, local or 
public, in bis work on the French annals. 
An author, like his epoch, sees and is but 
one thing.” ‘ 
This is, perhaps, a little too general. 
The mind of the philosophic historian 
should embrace the whole :—all that is 
‘connected with the subject, and all the 
interests that can be affected by it. 
His habits of association, however, and 
his habits of philosophizing, will, in 
some degree, affect his vision. There 
is no preventing the objects that are 
nearest, either to our senses or our 
thoughts, from appearing the largest. 
The cottage in the fore-ground looks 
larger than the distant citadel—the 
shrub, than the remoter forest. The 
historian should be aware, however, of 
the delusions of perspective, and remem- 
ber that it is not a picture, but a model, 
that he is to make, where every thing 
should have its actual proportions. 
This, most assuredly, Froissart never 
dreamt of; nor, perhaps, does M. de 
Sismondi always entirely recollect. 
The Westminster Reviewer, howeyer, 
will join with us in the congratulation, 
that the interests and happiness of the 
aggregate multitude of mankind are the 
objects nearest to the mental vision of 
this latter inestimable and philosophical 
historian, 
The) second -article ‘in the Review is 
. 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism. 
[Sept. I, 
“ The British Code of. Duel: a Refer- 
ence to the Laws of Honour and the 
Character of ‘a Gentleman:’—We were 
rather surprised, that in ‘treating that 
part» of the subject’ which ‘belongs to 
the ancient. judicial duel; the: West- 
minster reviewer should -not,\im any 
shape, have alluded to the legislative 
juggle by which — ingeniously con- 
founding two things so’ perfectly‘ dis- 
tinct as the personal right ‘of’ trial on 
the appeal of the next of kin; in cases 
of murder, and the barbarous: appeal 
of combat,—the best and surest of’ all 
defences against political, orauthorized 
assassination, and, therefore, one!of the 
best securities of ‘the ‘life-liberties’ of 
the people, was, opportunely, done 
away with, prior to the ‘Manchester 
massacres :—a legislative occasion, upon 
which the Whigs did themselves such 
immortal honour, by withdrawing from 
the house, to a man, upon the division 
on a question upon which they could 
not for shame vote upon the one side, 
nor had the nerve to vote upon ‘the 
other. 
Upon the Law of Honour, or gentle- 
manly part of the subject, the Reviewer 
has ably refuted all the sophistry by 
which the practice of duelling has been 
defended. But to what purpose? This 
is not a question of the understanding, 
but of feeling; and so long as men in 
certain stations of life shall continue to 
feel, that if they decline a challenge, or 
put up with certain insults without 
giving one, they must be scouted from 
society, or spit upon by every well- 
dressed bully with impunity—duels will 
continue to be fought. There is one 
consideration, however, connected with 
this subject, that we do not remember 
ever to have seen properly stated. 
Military men, and practised duellists, 
who have made it a part of their busi- 
ness—their education !|—to practise with 
the pistol till they can split a’ball upon 
the edge of a penknife, at twenty paces, 
will presume upon this to challenge, or 
to provoke challenges from persons 
who have been too peaceably, or too 
usefully employed to serve such an ap- 
prenticeship to murder; and who, in 
the nature of things, can therefore never 
meet them upon equal grounds, In 
such circumstances, what is. your, man 
of honour, as he calls himself, but.a 
bully and an assassin? = yy os 
Art. III. exposes. the » superficial 
grounds and inadequate ‘means*of'ob- 
servation on which M. Bianqui*(in his 
Voyage d’un jeune Francais’ en Angle- 
cia Die Paeer re 
