alleged conduct are so difficult to discover, that his enemies naturally accused him of purely selfish and personal ambition. Political obliquities are, however, more commonly produced by resentment or irritation than by corrupt cupidity; and it is possible that although the Editor of the Correspondence has not hinted at the nature of the defence, the entire charge against Lord Auckland's memory may be founded on incomplete knowledge of the facts. The chief agent in the transaction, the veteran intriguer, Lord Loughborough, was himself not less exempt from sectarian prejudices than the friend and kinsman with whose aid he had so often remodelled parties and governments. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the immediate instrument of the communications which influenced the King's decision, may be supposed, from his position and limited capacity, to have entertained a sincere hostility to the intended measure. It was naturally suspected that Lord Auckland was privy to the intercourse between his brother-in-law and his political associate; and his prospects of rising in a ministerial change were more intelligible than the hopes of the restless Chancellor, who was afterwards the first victim of his own contrivance. It is certain that the scheme of relieving the Catholics was prematurely divulged to the King, for the express purpose of ensuring the defeat of the measure. The principal authorities for the statement that Lord Auckland took a leading share in the transaction, are Lord Holland and Lord Malmesbury, who respectively represent the contemporary belief of the parties of Pitt and of Fox. Both writers assert that the Archbishop was the tool of his brother-in-law, and Lord Malmesbury adds that Lord Auckland had hoped to become Prime Minister, and that on the appointment of Addington he fully expected the place of Secretary of State. Allegations of this kind seldom admit of comparison with positive testimony, nor can it be denied that Lord Malmesbury might be influenced by ancient dislike as well as by recent hostility. The only overt act which can be cited in support of the charge, consisted in a speech in censure of Mr. Pitt, which Lord Auckland delivered in the House of Lords immediately after the resignation of the Minister. The impropriety of his language was generally felt, and Mr. Rose, with other friends of Mr. Pitt, immediately broke off their public and private intercourse with their unexpected antagonist; but it is remarkable that Mr. Rose, though he continued to cherish the steady resentment of a man of business, does not appear to have considered Lord Auckland responsible for the overthrow of the Government. While Mr. Pitt con tinued his intimacy with his fortunate successor, Mr. Rose persisted in believing that Mr. Addington had deliberately undermined his patron by flattering the prejudices of the King. His suspicions seem to have been unfounded, but his negative evidence may justify a suspension of judgment on the charge against Lord Auckland. The intemperate speech which gave just offence, would seem to indicate surprise and disappointment rather than gratification at the success of a recent intrigue. It is not impossible that the movers in the transaction may have calculated on a schism in the Government rather than on Mr. Pitt's resignation. The ejection of Mr. Dundas and of other friends of the Catholic cause, would have opened a vacancy for Lord Auckland, and might possibly have increased Lord Loughborough's influence in the Cabinet. It is at least certain that no cordiality existed between the Chancellor and the Speaker. Mr. Abbot in his conversation on the change of Government recommended Mr. Addington at once to get rid of the colleague whom he designated as Cardinal de Retz, and the new Minister replied without hesitation that the retirement of the Chancellor was already settled. Lord Loughborough had plotted for the benefit of a more plausible politician and a profounder lawyer than himself, but before he resigned the Seals he performed an act of characteristic audacity, in procuring the Royal assent to a Bill through the agency of the physician, at a time when the King was insane. Lord Eldon himself never bettered the example of his wily and daring predecessor. Lord Auckland retained the place of Postmaster-General till the resignation of Addington, in 1804, and he was President of the Board of Trade, under Lord Grenville, in 1806. The loss of his eldest son in 1810 put an end to his interest in public affairs, and in 1814 he closed his busy and eventful life. Notwithstanding the considerable success of his career, he was probably a disappointed man. Though he was prominent among the second rank of politicians, he might reasonably feel that his knowledge, his abilities, and his large experience qualified him for a more considerable place in the Ministry. Few candidates for high promotion acquiesce in the dispensations of Fortune, which seldom coincide accurately with the claims of talent or of merit. If Mr. Eden had been contented, after the defeat of the Coalition, to remain in the ranks of the Opposition, his desire of eminence would have perhaps been gratified at the expense of his legitimate wish for active employment. He would not have negotiated the Commercial Treaty, but he would have been the best economist and the ablest parliamentary tactician of the Whig party. In the schism of 1792 he would have been in a position to make terms with the Minister, and Mr. Pitt would have appreciated late as well as early talents and accomplishments which were eminently available for the public service. As compared with many other candidates for power, Lord Auckland seems to have enjoyed a prosperous career. Thirty years of political activity might alone reward the devotion of a life, and the younger son of a good family can scarcely have hoped for higher prizes than two embassies, a peerage, a seat in the Cabinet, and the confidence of the principal Minister. Less able men have been still more successful, and greater men have been compelled to content themselves with smaller rewards. Of the statesmen of his time, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Lord Grenville may be regarded as superior to all competitors. Addington ranks below the mediocrity which Lord Liverpool barely attained, and Canning's eminence belongs to a later era. Lord Auckland, like Lord Melville, belonged to the class of useful and clearheaded politicians, who, while they serve the public efficiently, are always accused of serving themselves. In a biography of contemporary statesmen, he would deserve a respectable place. The letters of Lord Auckland's correspondents naturally vary in merit and interest. Lord Loughborough's are remarkable beyond the rest for their spirit and vigour, and from the impression which they leave of the practical ability of the writer. Mr. Hugh Elliot, Lady Auckland's brother, contributes two or three lively and characteristic letters. Lord Sheffield, chiefly known as the friend of Gibbon, involuntarily draws his own portrait as a clever, conceited, good-natured and blundering busy-body. Mr. Storer, a popular member of society, longing in vain for a share in public life, supplies agreeable notices of private and political gossip. All the correspondents concur in adopting that indefinable tone of friendly deference or recognition which is inspired by personal character and intellectual qualities rather than by social position. Lord Auckland's Letters and his Spanish Diary are pleasantly and sensibly written. In the Diary especially, there is a constant vein of that kindly playfulness which in domestic relations properly takes the place of humour. The Letters contain one or two good stories which deserve preservation. The Archbishop Elector of Mayence had a country-house called La Favorite, and also a German female friend, whose name Lord Auckland declares to be unpronounceable. 'At one of the late formal dinners his electoral highness 'said to a French officer of distinction, "Vous avez vu La Favorite, Monsieur; en êtes vous content?" Réponse: "Oui, 'monseigneur, j'ai eu l'honneur de faire ma cour à Madame ce matin; effectivement c'est une charmante femme, et bien 'digne du nom dont votre altesse l'honore." Cynics who are of opinion that the publication of Lord Auckland's Correspondence is insufficiently justified either by its personal interest or by its historical value, must nevertheless admit that the popular appetite for biographical collections seems to be inexhaustible. The journals and correspondence of a respectable and common-place lady, who was formerly known as Mrs. Delany, are twice as voluminous, incomparably more trivial, and absolutely uncalled for. The writers and their friends are private and obscure persons of the most moderate abilities, and Mrs. Delany herself appears never to have said or done, or written anything remarkable. Yet the record of insignificant events has found numerous and eager readers, who are attracted by the obsolete manners and natural emotions which once really belonged to a little fragment of life. The pleasure which is derived from miscellaneous biography scarcely admits of being measured by a literary standard. Like the actual intercourse of society, it supplies materials for thought and varied associations, rather than definite conclusions. When it happens, as in the case of Lord Auckland's Correspondence, also to gratify historical curiosity, criticism, yielding perhaps to an undue bias, inclines to admit the expediency of the publication. ART. IV. 1. Some Account of the Foundation of Eton College, 2. Public School Education. A Lecture delivered at Tiverton, IT T is now exactly fifty years since Sydney Smith, in the pages of this Review, entered his earnest protest against the system upon which the public schools of England were at that time conducted,-against a system of education avowedly based upon the dangerous principle of rearing a maximum of lambs with a minimum of shepherds. He vehemently denounced the excessive abuse of classical learning which then obtained to the absolute exclusion of more useful and practical branches of knowledge, and had even the hardihood to propound a dictum held to be little less than blasphemous by English scholars and gentlemen, viz. that in our upper class education there was 'too much Latin and Greek.' mitting, the very great benefits which have resulted to society Conscious of, and readily adin all ages from the cultivation of classical literature, Sydney Smith urged, that an aptitude for mastering those difficult studies is not given to all men; and that there are other branches of knowledge, more readily attainable by average capacities, which, in the every day business of life, would prove far more valuable than the imperfect smattering of the dead languages usually brought away from our public schools by nine boys out of ten, as the sole result of six or eight years' expensive schooling. Without denying that the composition of poetry in any language which we may be learning, must be of considerable use in familiarising ourselves with its niceties, he affirmed that in our public school education too much time is devoted to the manufacture of Latin and Greek verses; the price paid for such an accomplishment - the best part of those years during which the mind is most susceptible of instruction,-being, in his opinion, altogether disproportionate to the value of the acquirement. It was the fashion in Sydney Smith's day-it is so still-to maintain that the neglect to which boys are necessarily exposed at our public schools in consequence of the insufficient number of assistant masters, renders them self-reliant and manly; and that the premature initiation into vice which too often results from that cause, imparts to them an early knowledge of |