other person who is the least likely to have made such a compilation in that age. However, a thing may be true, though it cannot be proved. So let us go on to see what there is to be said against Samuel's authorship. In the first place, we take it for granted that, just as in the present article it has been shown that Dr. Colenso has made a very poor case in favour of Samuel, so in our last number (see Christian Remembrancer for January, 1863) we showed that he made no case at all against Moses. We have every right, therefore, to insist that Moses is in possession of the ground, because the authorship has always been attributed to him from the earliest times of which we have any independent records. And here, if we could not make the case stronger, we should be quite content to leave it. But, in point of fact, insuperable objections may be shown against every theory that has ever been invented of a later authorship of these books. It would be by no means an unprofitable study of the contents of the Old Testament, to prove the absurdity of any later period that could be suggested; but, undoubtedly, if we were obliged to maintain any thesis but the true one on this subject, we should fix upon the time of Josiah, and ascribe the invention to Hilkiah the high priest. A little ingenuity might make out a far better case than anything we have found in these dreary volumes. It would, perhaps, be a profitable exercise for a student of Old Testament history to rip up this hypothesis from the internal evidence that may be produced from the Old Testament history. But our present business is with the Prophet Samuel, and not with Hilkiah the Priest; and, setting aside the morality of such a forgery as is ascribed to him, we say, he could not have well invented a story more unfavourable to his purpose. He must have wished it to be received as true history, or at least as probable. The story is full of the grossest improbabilities, in the way of miraculous interference. Moreover, the history recorded in the eighth chapter of the First Book of Samuel, which, on the present hypothesis, we must take as authentic, becomes utterly ridiculous. We are there told that the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and complained that Samuel's sons perverted judgment, and accordingly, being dissatisfied, they request him to make them a king. The influential position occupied by Samuel does not admit of any other supposition than that he was one of the wisest men of his day. If, therefore, he had invented a history, it would have been such a history as would have suited his purpose. It is plain that Samuel was extremely unwilling to allow the people to have a king; it would, therefore, have been of the utmost importance to him to have documents which were believed, and to which he could refer, which should have enabled him authoritatively to

refuse the wish of the people. Now, the history is, upon the whole, such as would have helped him in making out a case against the desirableness of having a king. The government is represented as having always been a theocracy-rulers, governors, judges, captains, and the like, having their authority, not by any hereditary right, but direct from God, who is, from time to time at least, personally interfering in His people's behalf, whether in a way which may be called miraculous or not. Now, nearly the whole antecedent history of the Jewish nation is a kind of standing protest against the kingly government; and it will be said to be an indication of great sagacity and wisdom on Samuel's part that it is so represented that he could appeal to it in this way. He evidently wished to prevent, if possible, the establishment of a dynasty of kings; and his object must have been to preserve his own relation to the people as judge, and to keep the people obedient, in the view that he was in constant and immediate communication with Almighty God. The history shows that he was unsuccessful: the people were too strong for him, and prevailed upon him to set a king over them. So far, it is all very reasonable, it will be said. He did his best to prevent the foreseen probability of the people being clamorous for a king. No man can insure success; and Samuel, with all his sagacity, was beaten. The people were too strong for him; and all his representations of the glories of their past history on all occasions when they had been obedient to God and His chosen leaders, as well as the warnings of their failures when they followed their own devices, went for nothing. It was a good attempt, and ought to have succeeded if anything could succeed; but a people's self-will sometimes proceeds beyond all bounds, and baffles the profoundest wisdom and the most penetrating sagacity of lawgiver or statesman. But what statesman, we ask, in Samuel's position, ever could have invented an actual provision for the very case which he laboured so much, and so earnestly desired, to prevent? What statesman would have thought of forging a document which contains a prophecy of the very event which he deprecated, and a sort of allowance for, and justification of, a step which he does not hesitate to speak of as a rebellion against himself and his God? The passage we are referring to is as follows:

When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the

end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites : and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.'

Now, this passage is even of more importance to our argument than we have yet represented it. Supposing it should be said that Samuel found the change of government inevitable, and, being anxious to make the best of matters, pretended that the passage in Deuteronomy was of Divine authority, in order to restrict the power of the king as much as he could, and as it referred to such vices as were likely to prevail, and which did in fact prevail in the case of Saul and in that of Solomon, we ask, Is it at all likely that Saul, who all the latter part of his life was at issue with Samuel, and must have known of the invention of the history if it had not been true, would still have regarded Samuel with the awe which he manifested towards him? Would he not have instantly exposed his pretensions to a Divine authority for these books? And is it not, to say the least, probable that he would have succeeded in averting the transfer of his government to Samuel's nominee. Even in Solomon's time, it is certain that the arrogant pretensions of such books, if not true, must have been exposed; for Solomon, by falling into the very fault that is predicted in the passage above quoted, would have the greatest interest in showing up pretensions which, even in that day, at the interval of scarcely more than a single generation, could have been proved to be false. It must be remembered, moreover, that this very forgery enjoined upon the king, not only to write a copy of the law, but also to keep it by him and read therein all the days of his life. Such a passage as the above is simply fatal to the hypothesis of Samuel having been the writer of the Mosaic history.

A FRENCH journalist of the name of Hector Malot-one of the contributors, if we mistake not, to the Opinion Nationale-has been publishing what he calls 'La Vie moderne en Angleterre' (Paris: Michel Levy frères). If not quite as lively and as imaginative as M. Larcher, whose 'L'Angleterre, Londres et les Anglais' we noticed a year ago, he is very lively and imaginative nevertheless. The 'Vie moderne' was originally contributed to a newspaper; but though its author himself informs us that he has seen or learnt but little in England, he has considered that little so valuable that he has thought it worth his while to reproduce it in the present shape. His work is divided into eleven chapters, with the following headings: La vie matérielle-Les journaux-Le théâtre-Le sport-L'instruction-Les volontaires-Le Dimanche-Les Anglaises—Le Roman-Londres la nuit-La Ville.' It contains also a dedication, an introduction, and an appendix. Most of these chapters are full of information which will doubtless prove as novel to Englishmen as it has to Frenchmen, and they contain also not a few contradictions. M. Malot supplies us with many stories and anecdotes about English life and about himself, but most of them we take to exist only in our French journalist's lively, and not always very pure, imagination. He also frequently indulges in attempts at wit and plaisanterie, but his wit, such as it is, is usually in very bad taste, and his plaisanterie is as lourde as the pate of which he speaks. As to his knowledge of English, it seems on a par with his other acquirements. Even when M. Malot speaks the truth, he mixes up a good deal of nonsense with it; and when he praises an object, he is sure to find at the same time something to detract. True, he contrasts favourably several things in this country with the same things in his own, but he appears to do so only the better to find fault with us for something else. We will give a few specimens of M. Malot's style of writing and blunders taken almost at random. A Londres,' says he, 'les hôtels de premier ordre sont très-beaux, ou plus justement très'bons; seulement la vie y est un peu chère: habiter le West-End ou West'minster coûte quarante, cinquante, cent francs par jour. Habiter 'Leicester square, où les hôtels français sont nombreux, coûte douze ou 'quinze francs. Seulement il faut observer que Leicester square n'est 'point un quartier aristocratique et respectable, comme disent les Anglais.' (P. 24.) M. Malot is fully entitled to speak of Leicester Square and its hotels; but we doubt whether he knows anything of those of Westminster or of the West-End. Further on, after having informed us that the 'cuisine anglaise is 'très-simple,' and that usually 'la nourriture se compose de boeuf ou de mouton rôti,' or rather 'bouilli,' as well as of boiled fish, he adds-Pour varier ces mets substantiels, on a des pâtisseries à la rhubarbe ; la pâte est lourde comme un morceau de plomb, et gluante comme un morceau de savon. Ces mets se servent sans assaisonne'ment; chacun fait le sien à sa guise. Pour cela on apporte devant 'chaque convive une sorte d'huilier à six ou huit compartiments dans 'lesquels se trouvent tous les condiments de la terre, ce qu'il y a de plus 'violent en épices et en excitants. L'huile seule est oubliée; c'est trop fade pour un gosier anglais; d'ailleurs on ne l'emploie point pour la salade, qui se mange le plus souvent au sel, ou quelquefois avec une sauce blanche. 'brûlante comme le vitriol, qui se conserve dans des flacons contournés comme des serpents.' (P. 38.)

M. Malot has some most curious observations, as well as descriptions, interspersed with great prodigality in all his chapters; but the chapters entitled 'Les Anglaises' and 'Le Dimanche' are peculiarly rich in them. We decline to give any extracts from the former, they are scarcely fit to give. M. Malot concludes it by saying, that 'si les Anglais voulaient s'allier aux

'festins: il s'en faut!'

Françaises, et les Français aux Anglaises de cette union naîtrait une race qui 'étonnerait le monde qu'elle dominerait.' During the whole of his sojourn in London, our author seems to have suffered dreadfully from that terrible jour de la semaine ' called Sunday. However, he thinks it right to mention, that he was never left without anything to eat 'dans ce jour redoutable,' or reduced to enter a chemist's shop, and there to 'tromper sa faim avec quelques livres de pâte de guimauve; mais -he considerately adds'ce n'est pas à dire que le Dimanche soit à Londres un jour de plaisir et de With the theatres, music-halls, and 'lieux de divertissement de toute nature' closed, what was poor M. Malot to do during the whole of that 'jour redoutable'? Even the usual recreations of Leicester Square were insufficient for him on that day. His great amusement seems to have been to listen to street and park preachers, of whom, according to him, there is a large variety in the metropolis. 'Sans doute,' he says, 'on prêche en plein air dans la semaine... mais la grande, 'la vraie, la puissante prédication est celle du Dimanche. Et qui donc préche 'ainsi? tout le monde; tous ceux qui ont la langue bien pendue et la salive 'abondante; des lords, des cordonniers, des tailleurs, surtout des tailleurs. (P. 182.) M. Malot, blushing with native modesty, quietly affirms that he has seen and learnt very little in England; we must acknowledge that he has seen and learnt a great deal, and that very much to the purpose. We should, however, be scarcely doing full justice to our accomplished traveller, and to his accurate and extensive knowledge of the English language and of English life, if we omitted giving one or two additional extracts from his first chapter, which includes an account of his journey to London from Paris. His fellow-travellers are thus described: Dans le wagon qui nous emportait de Paris pour Boulogne, j'étais le seul Français; auprès de moi étaient trois jeunes filles plus ou moins jolies, 'dont les cheveux pâles et frisants, les yeux bleus abrités par de longs cils, 'les joues fraîches et douces comme une feuille de rose, les pieds longs et 'mal chaussés, disaient clairement la nationalité; en face, j'avais un gentleman aux cheveux blancs, haut en couleur, carré des épaules, vigoureux, 'bien portant, bien nourri, un vrai type d'Anglo-Saxon.' (P. 13.) The ingenious chronicler informs us further how these young ladies spent their time during the trajet. Of course they were carefully provided with the brandy bottle-that indispensable accompaniment of English ladies, according to writers of the stamp of Larcher and Malot :-'Depuis Paris 'elles étaient fort occupées à manger des gâteaux; pendant les moments de repos elles respiraient le sel et se passaient sur la figure des mouchoirs 'trempés dans de l'eau de Cologne ; de temps en temps elles tiraient d'un splendide trousse de voyage une assez grande bouteille en cristal fermée un bouchon armorié, et elles se versaient dans un gobelet en vermeil une liqueur qu'a la couleur et a l'odeur j'aurais prise pour 'de la vulgaire eau-de-vie, si j'avais été un Français hostile à l'Angleterre.' (P. 17.) As to the English gentleman, he seems, according to the authority before us, to have been occupied in praising and abusing his own country by turns, and in teaching M. Malot how to behave when in England. 'Un étranger,' says M. Malot's Englishman, 'lors même qu'il est un 'homme du monde et qu'il sait l'anglais [which is certainly not the case with the étranger before us, who is evidently the person referred to], peut 'être exposé, en arrivant chez nous, aux mésaventures les plus désagréables. Čela tient à deux causes :-d'abord à ce que les Anglais, voyant peu 'd'étrangers, sont par cela impitoyables pour tout ce qui n'est point taillé sur leur propre patron, qui naturellement est à leurs yeux parfait ;-en'suite, à ce que lorsqu'une société est malade et corrompue, il lui faut, pour se soutenir, inventer des règles tout à fait arbitraires. C'est ainsi 6 que nous avons créé une loi sociale qui se résume dans ces deux mots: • It is shocking, it is not proper.

' avec