into oblivion." Of the second he says, "This performance happened to give less displeasure to the whigs, and was better received. It not only rose itself, but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother." Of the History of England it is extremely difficult to give a fair and unbiased opinion, because, while the author is, in general, one of the most impartial writers on this subject, it is scarcely a paradox to say, that the few partialities in which lie has indulged, have done more to warp the mind than the violent prejudices of others. Previous to his history, those who wrote on political subjects ranged themselves in parties, and each man proclaimed with open mouth the side for which he was about to argue, and men heard him as a special pleader. Hume looked over events with the eye of a philosopher; he seemed to be careless of the extent of the good or bad of either party. On neither side did he abuse, on neither did he laud or even justify. The side which he adopted seldom enjoyed approbation or even vindication, and only in apology did he distinguish it from that to which he was inimical. From this peculiarity, the opinions to which he leaned acquired strength from the suffrage of one so apparently impartial and unconcerned. Notwithstanding the prejudices generally attributed however to Hume as an historian, we cannot set him down as an enemy to liberty. No man had grander views of the power of the human mind, and of the higher majesty of intellect, when compared with the external attributes of rank ; and the writings of a republican could not exceed in depicting this feeling, the picture he has drawn of the parliament of Charles the First, and of the striking circumstances of the king's condemnation. The instances in which he has show himself to be inconsistent, may, perhaps, be more attributed to his habits, than to his opinions. His indolent benevolence prompted a sympathy with the oppressed, and he felt a reluctance to justify those who assumed the aspect of active assailants, from whatever cause ; while in matters of religion, viewing all persuasions in much the same aspect, unprejudiced himself, he felt a contempt for those who indulged in prejudice, and was more inclined to censure than to vindicate those who acted from religious impulse. With all his partialities, however, let those who study the character of the author while they read his history recollect, that he never made literature bow to rank, that he never flattered a great man to obtain a favour, and that, though long poor, he was always independent. Of the seeming contradiction between his life and opinions, we quote the following applicable remarks from the Edinburgh Review:
"Few things seem more unaccountable, and indeed absurd, than that Hume should have taken part with high church and high monarchy men. The persecutions which he suffered in his youth from the presbyterians, may, perhaps, have influenced his ecclesiastical partialities. But that he should have sided with the Tudors and the Stuarts against the people, seems quite inconsistent with all the great traits of his character. His unrivaled sagacity must have looked with contempt on the preposterous arguments by which the jus divinum was maintained. His natural benevolence must have suggested the cruelty of subjecting the enjoyments of thousands to the caprice of one unfeeling individual: and his own practical independence in private life, might have taught him the value of those feelings which he has so mischievously derided. Mr Fox seems to have been struck with some surprise at this strange trait in the character of our philosopher. In a letter to Mr Laing he says, 'He was an excellent man, and of great powers of mind; but his partiality to kings and princes is intolerable. Nay, it is, in my opinion, quite ridiculous: and is more like the foolish admiration which women and children sometimes have for kings, than the opinion, right or wrong, of a philosopher.' "
It would be a vain task to enumerate the controversial attacks on Hume's
