after the heat of contest; but as Mr. Roebuck, in his History of the Whigs, remarks, "a contemporary historian is a witness as well as an historian—a witness indeed, giving his testimony under the best security for its accuracy; liability to instant denial and searching cross-examination."
A more serious objection may be, that an impartial history cannot be expected from one whose participation in the movement might influence his judgment to a more favourable one of those who determinedly opposed it, than either class deserved. To this my reply would be, that he who has been a partizan from a deep conviction of the humanity and justice of a cause, is quite as likely to be a truthful historian as one who, not having formed any decisive opinion as to the necessity of the contest on one side or the other, held aloof from it, and was utterly indifferent to its great results.
A more formidable objection presented itself when I first contemplated a History of the League—the difficulty of speaking of living men, its members, without incurring the charge of adulation; but, on consideration, I felt that while I confined myself to a faithful, plain and unambitious narrative of their labours, the charge could not justly be laid at my door. A restrospection of the whole circumstances
