They are not eloquent incentives to revolution. They are calm, clear, emphatic sentences, partly compassionate, partly provoking, without any of the zealous, impatient ardour with which he notices religious and political bigotry in Spain and Scotland.

Yet Buckle, like some other able writers, did not know his own strength, or rather in what direction, or by what language, it would have most effect. Hence his long chapter on Spain had little, if any, influence in that stationary country, while his contemptuous, reproachful mention of Scottish prejudices was firmly refuted by national pride and religious conviction in Scotland.

But when Buckle, with the keen force of his peculiar genius, without exciting himself, as he does about Spain and Scotland, attacks Russian military rule, his success, though glorious indeed for his book's circulation, was most disastrous to its admirers.

Among the captured Nihilists were usually some officers, who, strange to say, instead of being indignant at Buckle's dislike to their profession, were practically converted to his views, or confirmed in revolutionary ideas by the persuasive energy of his words. In dealing with "the Scottish intellect," as of men, deprived of mental pursuits, naturally turn to warlike ones as the only resource remaining to them. Hence it is that in Russia all ability is estimated by a military standard. The army is con sidered to be the greatest glory of the country; to win a battle or to outwit an enemy is valued as one of the noblest achievements of life, and civilians, whatever their merits may be, are despised by this barbarous people as beings of an altogether inferior and subordinate character."-Vol. 1st, Ch. IV.

he calls it, he encountered far more incredulity than among the "barbarous " Russians. He also offended British Roman Catholics, especially by his remarks on Spain, and incurred the censure of Professor Robertson, who calls his "History" "impious" and

absurd." I

In describing Scottish ideas, Buckle, with an impartial dislike to all clergy, which might, perhaps, have united the Papacy and the Reformers against him, sharply ridicules the Presbyterian ministers with an eager vehemence very different from his calm allusions to Russia. Yet his remarks on Scotland, like those on Spain, were comparatively unheeded.2

The vehemence of his language in both cases apparently rather weakened than increased its effect, while his Russian references, so few, yet so dangerously attractive, were seized upon by alarmed Russian statesmen like literary explosives. Buckle ends his interesting and learned work by an amusing yet important allusion to a dispute between the Scottish

Robertson's "Lectures on Modern History," p. 169.

2 After praising a few Scottish writers, Buckle declares that Scotland is still "awed by a few noisy and ignorant preachers, to whom it allows a license and yields a submission disgraceful to the age, and incompatible with the commonest notions of liberty." He adds that the Scotch, in religious matters, "display a littleness of mind and a love of persecuting others, which shows that the Protestantism of which they boast has done them no good," and that their prejudices "make them the laughing-stock of Europe, and have turned the very name of the Scotch Kirk into a by-word and a reproach among educated men.”—“History of Civilisation," Vol. 3rd.

clergy and the late Lord Palmerston when Prime Minister.

In 1853 Asiatic cholera visited Scotland, and while its clergy offered up prayers, the practical Premier, strongly, and, at last, sarcastically, urged the Scottish, in words, perhaps, more taunting than persuasive, to take sanitary measures against it, and not trust to prayers alone, which he evidently thought them inclined to do. I Buckle highly praises Lord Palmerston's words, declaring had they been known two centuries earlier they would have "ruined him socially and politically." He ends his industrious work with an earnest appeal to the Scotch, in whom he takes special interest, to be more just and tolerant than he thinks they were even in the last century.

Unlike Scott, however, Buckle, in condemning religious bigotry, both in Spain and Scotland, shows some of that "heat of temper" which he censures in others. He is so impatient with opponents that his zealous words are often more likely to irritate than convince. His scornful mention of the Scottish Kirk would likely have less influence in checking religious prejudices than Scott's calm wisdom, who, with a fairness to opponents equally rare and valuable, temperately proved their absurdity.

The latter describes a worthy Presbyterian clergyman preaching to victorious co-religionists, first vin

1 Lord Palmerston, in a public letter, suggests the cleaning and purification of houses, lest the dreaded cholera should become a pestilence, “In spite of all the prayers and fastings of a united but inactive nation."-Quoted in Buckle's "History," Vol. 3rd.

dicating every man's right to worship according to his conscience, but finally suggesting that all who differ from his own religion should be expelled the country, so as to "re-edify, in its integrity, the beauty of the sanctuary," &c. Allusions so sensible and forbearing, so free from prejudice even against the prejudiced, and so just towards those unjust yet well meaning men with whom impartial history abounds, are surely more likely to improve men's minds than Buckle's impatient bitterness, which often seems inconsistent with that civilised enlightenment of which he is such a brilliant advocate.

"Old Mortality."

CHAPTER XV

RECENT

WRITERS

HOUGH Buckle's dislike to all clerical influence

TH

shows little sectarian preference, his views were probably more warmly opposed by Roman Catholicism than by any other Christian denomination. As a rule, British literary men in the last century have decidedly opposed that religion. Protestantism in different forms, Deism or Atheism, while opposing each other, have usually been avowed or insinuated by British writers of this century. The secessions, therefore, of Drs. Manning and Newman from the Established Anglican to the Roman Catholic Church were all the more surprising to Protestants and cheering to Catholics. Both were dignitaries in the Episcopal English Church, learned men, with every educational advantage, social privilege, and intellectual acquire

ment.

They moved in the highest British society, enjoying free intercourse with the most cultivated, distinguished, and eminent minds, including the chief statesmen of their times. Yet, to the surprise alike of enlightened and ignorant fellow-countrymen, they openly declared