recognised the impartiality of the author in dealing with the American revolution, and the thoroughness of his investigations. By this great work Lecky's name will chiefly live. The style is sound, lucid, and elevated throughout, never rhetorical or declamatory, and never sinking below itself. The narrative moves steadily forward, with due regard to chronological sequence ; but the events and episodes are so grouped and connected as to make the whole intelligible. The limitations of the subject and the necessities of historical narrative help to correct that tendency to diffuseness, recurrence, and defective arrangement which are noticeable in the earlier works. Attention is mainly concentrated on political movements and ideas, but society, commerce, industry, art, and literature, and especially ecclesiastical affairs and religious thought, receive their share. But perhaps the most valuable qualities in Lecky's historical work are the philosophical character of his summaries and deductions, the soundness of his judgments of men and of events, and the scrupulous impartiality with which he treats all parties and all creeds. There is doubtless some want of colour; but as a truthful picture of eighteenth-century Britain in its most important aspects the book excelled all previous efforts, and will be hard to supersede.
In Irish affairs Lecky always took a keen interest. He saw the dangers of Gladstone's land legislation. Although he never became a tory, he was, from the date of Gladstone's adoption of the policy of home rale in 1886, a liberal unionist. 'He intervened actively in the struggle over Gladstone's policy by writing several weighty letters to 'The Times' (1886) and by an article in the 'Nineteenth Century' (April 1886). When, in 1892, the home rule project was revived, he again denounced it in letters to the Irish Unionist Convention and to the 'Scotsman,' and in articles published in the 'National Observer,' the 'Pall Mall Gazette,' and the 'Contemporary Review ' (May 1893). Meanwhile he was occupied in rearranging his 'History' for the cabinet edition, which appeared in 1892, and in working up the materials for 'Democracy and Liberty.' In 1891 he published a volume of poems, which, though not reaching the higher flights of poetic imagination or expression, were marked by elevated feeling, a tender melancholy, and a sincerity and self-restraint, truly representing the author's temperament. In 1892, on the death of Professor Freeman, Lecky was offered the regius professorship of modern history at Oxford, but declined it. He had been made hon. D.C.L. of Oxford in 1888 and hon. Litt.D. of Cambridge in 1891. In 1895 he was elected hon. secretary for foreign correspondence to the Royal Academy, and received the honorary degree of LL.D. at Glasgow. In October of the same year he accepted an invitation to stand for the seat in parliament, as representative of Dublin University, vacated by the elevation of Mr. Plunket to the peerage ; some of the clerical electors demurred to his religious opinions, but after a contest he was elected by a considerable majority. It is noteworthy that his first speech (February 1896) was made on behalf of the Irish prisoners condemned under the Treason Felony Act thirteen years before. He speedily made a mark in parliament, and was listened to with attention when he rose to speak. He discharged his parliamentary duties with exemplary regularity ; and his tall, thin, somewhat stooping, but impressive figure was well known in the house. But he never acquired the parliamentary manner ; his speaking was so fluent, even, and rapid as to become monotonous ; and he excelled rather in set speeches than in debate. Although he had a distinct turn for politics, and his sincerity, ability, and wide knowledge always carried weight, he must be ranked among those whom training and character fitted better for other fields, and whom distinction won elsewhere carried too late into the rough-and-tumble of parliamentary life.
In 1896 he published his 'Democracy and Liberty' in two volumes. This book, though full, like all his works, of learning, and marked by profound thought, impartiality, and sobriety of judgment, hardly met with the success which, in many respects, it deserved. liike his 'Rationalism ' and his 'Morals,' it to some extent falls between the two stools of essay and narrative, of history and philosophical discussion. The book is very discursive. The great question — the effect of democracy upon liberty — is obscured by the importation of many matters, such as marriage and divorce, whose connection with the main subject is not obvious, or of others, like nationality, the bearing of which upon it is insufficiently brought out. The weight of the illustrative matter and the very fairness of the tone have also hindered its popularity. In these respects it may profitably be compared with Sir James Stephen's 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,'
