1828.] 
state as when those laws were planned ; but 
as all things have altered, do alter, and will 
alter, an amazing absurdity is the conse- 
quence of resting laws on precedents ; since 
by adopting this popular error, we shall find 
that we have laws for things that no longer 
exist, and none for things that do exist.” 
Yet with all Mr. D’Israeli’s laborious re- 
searches, even among manuscripts, which 
scarcely any other eye has scanned, it is 
really surprising how little fresh information, 
important or unimportant, he has routed 
out. ‘“ Hume,’ says he, “ composed his 
immortal pages before our great historical 
collections were given to the werld; and ere 
the public repository of our national history 
was yet opened. Our epicurean philoso- 
pher, when librarian of the advocates’ 
library, loved to indulge his inquiries reclin- 
ing on his sofa, rather than busying himself 
among the shelves. Without a tithe of his 
penetrating genius, we can multiply his 
scanty information; but with more know- 
ledge we shall often be compelled to come 
to the conclusions of the philosophical his- 
torian.’’ This is as true now as before Mr. 
D’Israeli began. Hume has of late suf- 
fered considerable depreciation. ‘‘ We 
writers,’ adds D’Israeli, ‘“ are but sheep, 
and one bell-wether will serve to lead the 
flock.”” Though a thousand petty mistakes 
have been detected—and it be desirable to 
see them corrected—the correction will 
scarcely modify his great results. Hume 
has often, perhaps, guessed at the truth; 
but his guesses have been the happiest man 
ever made. 
The almost irresistible tendency of an 
historical critic is to contradict, and this 
same spirit of contradiction Mr. D’ Israeli is 
quite unable to repress. Buckingham no- 
body praises—even Hume can say little in 
palliation of his follies; but the reader will 
not be surprised to learn D’Israeli becomes 
his champion. He finds him to have had 
much of an English spirit, and numerous 
good points about him—but to make good 
his case, he is obliged to darken the shades 
of Williams’s character — Buckingham’s 
protégé, rival, and supplanter—and_ un- 
doubtedly he has given a new aspect to the 
matter. The “ secret history of the Spanish 
and French match’’ adds scarcely any thing 
to our previous information—nothing, in- 
deed, but some perhaps suspicious matter 
from the manuscript: of one Wadsworth, 
who was employed to teach the Infanta the 
English language. He has left a voluminous 
catalogue of both Buckingham’s minutest 
impropricties, and his more flagrant out- 
rages. “ This person,” observes D’ Israeli, 
“ was an English jesuit, and on his return 
renounced his Catholicism; and, dubbing 
himself captain, the renegado proselyte ap- 
pears to have been himself a loose liver. The 
charges were doubtless exaggerated, for (a 
very unsatisfactory for) the minutest is not 
lost in the enumeration. Buckingham 
ealled the prince ridiculous names, in mere 
Domestic and Foreign. 
191 
playfulness, and admitted the lowest women 
into the king’s palace. He fell ill at Ma- 
drid, from political vexation, or some other 
cause, and the court of Spain declared they 
*¢ would rather put the Infanta into a well 
than into his hands.” Perhaps the secret 
history of the loan of ships to the French at 
the siege of Rochelle, is the most success- 
ful instance of the author’s researches. 
We have hinted at D’Israeli’s political 
leaning, and perhaps we could furnish no 
better proof than the manner in which he 
has raked together the ancient scandal 
against those whom he sneeringly terms the 
first patriots ; and so decided is it, that he 
cannot conceal from himself the necessity 
of finding some cover to screen the malig- 
nity—and what does the reader suppose it 
tobe? Why—Moses was passionate, Abra- 
ham lied, Aaron was idolatrous, Sampson 
was a woman’s slave, Thomas was incredu- 
lous, Paul was a persecutor, and Peter the 
denier of his master. What then could be 
expected from these patriots ? 
He begins with Elliott, whose fiery pa- 
triotism is assigned solely to personal ran- 
cour against the favourite Buckingham. In 
early life he had been Buckingham’s inti- 
mate companion and fellow-traveiler ; and, 
on Buckingham’s rise, was among the fore- 
most of his flatterers. In the distribution 
of the loaves and fishes he was not forgotten 
—Buckingham was lord high admiral of 
England, and made his friend vice-admiral 
of Devonshire. By-and-bye Elliott had a 
quarrel with his neighbours the Moyles—a 
reconciliation was attempted by common 
friends, and in the hour of conviviality, 
with wine before them, he treacherously 
stabbed the father in the back. On this 
barbarous act Elliott fled to London, to 
solicit his pardon from Buckingham, which 
was however refused, and a heavy penalty 
inflicted to expiate the offence. Moyle un- 
expectedly recovered, and Elliott applied to 
the duke for a remission of the fine; but 
the impoverished state of the exchequer 
made return impracticable, and all he could 
get was a knighthood. LExasperation at 
this refusal—coupled with his pressing em- 
barrassments for money—was the source of 
Elliott’s opposition to Charles’s government. 
The reader will see at a glance how much 
of this is conjectural, and how little it is 
worth. 
Dr. Turner, it seems, “had long haunted 
the court, but had been contemptuously 
treated by the king for his deficient vera- 
city.” This was the foundation of his pa- 
triotism. We confess (adds the author), 
that we little value the patriot made out of 
a discarded place-hunter ; a man who hates 
the court, because the court does not love 
him. 
Upon Hampden he has a difficulty in fix- 
ing any invidious motive, and only discovers 
that “he retired to a more reserved and 
melancholy society,” and brooded upon po- 
litics, and so resolved to overturn the go- 
