present circumstances are rightly turned to account. With an extract from this letter we shall conclude, in the hope and trust that advice so evidently reasonable from a man so highly respected will not be found ineffectual. The conviction has for some time been deepening in my own mind, that the Evangelical clergy must be prepared, not only as a matter of policy, nor only for the sake of order and of peace, but as a matter of conscience and duty, to adhere closely to the rubrics. One of the great evils under which we are labouring is a state of all but lawlessness in matters of ritual. It is a scandal and a weakness. And I venture to express my conviction that it will be for the strength and honour of the Evangelical clergy to show that, as a literal and close obedience to the rubrics involves (thank God!) no surrender of principle, they are prepared to do their utmost for unity and order in matters which are essentially minor matters as compared with points of doctrine, but not trifling as involving the question of obedience. I have not forgotten, nor do I underrate the argument, that the Tu quoque, so often urged against us, loses much of its edge, because where rubrical observances have fallen into desuetude, and the clergy have had no meaning of a doctrinal character in practices to which custom seemed to give the force of law, such cases of defect are clearly not parallel to the cases of positive innovation and revival which have avowedly involved symbolic intention, and been adopted as the outward expression of dogma. But, as I believe that our people, for the most part, respect law, and are jealous only of approximation to Rome, we shall carry them with us in our recognition of the fairness of applying the decisions of the judgment to ourselves, as well as to the ritualists. What is to be deprecated is isolated individual action. I would, in all humility, suggest that we should take counsel together, and, in a spirit of prayer, honesty, and candour, determine upon our course. Let us first distinctly ascertain the points in which the judgment bears on the practice. Where duty is clear, let us not wait for Episcopal monitors to compel us. In points of doubt or diversity of opinion let us "resort to the Bishop of the diocese." And throughout, let us not forget that the clergy do not constitute the Church. Our laity must be considered, consulted, and not overridden. If changes are now necessitated, let us explain our position to them, and make it clear that we are not innovating from caprice or from sympathy with Rome, or as symbolising false doctrine, but only under a sense of duty, and in obedience to law and order.' ART. ART. VI.-The Life and Administration of Robert Banks, Second Earl of Liverpool, K.G., late First Lord of the Treasury. Compiled from original documents, by Charles Duke Yonge, Regius Professor of History and English Literature in the Queen's College, Belfast. 3 vols. London, 1868. THOU HOUGH the words of Horace, natus moriensque fefellit, cannot with propriety be applied in their literal meaning to a public man, yet there is a sense in which they indicate not inaptly one of the chief peculiarities in the career we have undertaken to depict. Of that constellation of statesmen who illumined the last years of the Georgian era, none sunk to his rest amid so little public observation, or lingered for so brief a period on the lips of men as he who had been first among them. Castlereagh, Canning, Sidmouth, Peel, Wellington, Grenville, each and all, though doubtless in very different degrees, have been objects of interest and curiosity ever since the grave closed over them, and have bequeathed to posterity a thousand still unsettled questions in the spheres of both ethics and of politics. Round every one of them quite a small literature has gradually sprung up; and to whatever extent we may have come to agree about their policy, controversy still rages, and seems long likely to rage over their characters and conduct. The light still burns in the horizon, though the orb has disappeared beneath it. Lord Liverpool alone, who for nearly fifteen years was the chief of this brilliant group, who gave his name to a government second only in duration to the ministries of Pitt and Walpole, and richer even than these in the harvest of glory which it reaped, passed suddenly into the darkness without seeming to be missed, and leaving behind him scarce a trace of his living greatness in the pages of political literature. In the year 1828 an anonymous life of him was published in one volume, but it records merely the facts of his career, and having served its temporary purpose is now forgotten. Some incidental notices of him are to be found in the Quarterly and Edinburgh Reviews, the latter having been reprinted among Lord Brougham's 'Statesmen of the Reign of George III.': but not a single essay devoted exclusively to himself. In conformity with this remarkable fact, is the recorded tradition that during his own lifetime, men, in speaking of the measures of Administration, rarely referred to the Prime Minister. If a financial project were discussed, it was treated as the project of Vansittart; if our foreign policy were canvassed it was imputed to Castlereagh or Canning; if the army was the subject of discourse, people said the Duke of Wellington was understood to to have such and such a scheme in contemplation; when club gossips wagged their heads over the 'Six Acts,' they condemned or they applauded Lord Sidmouth. No one ever named Lord Liverpool. And this habit, if it really was one, is the more odd because Lord Liverpool was very far from being that nonentity in his own Cabinet which it presupposes him to have been. He was fond of all financial studies, and had been educated in political economy. He spoke frequently and well on the corn laws and the currency; and we should say that Mr. Vansittart was much more indebted to Lord Liverpool than Lord Liverpool to Mr. Vansittart. His letters to the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Canning shew a large acquaintance with foreign affairs, strong powers of reasoning, and no reluctance to push his own opinion even against the two ablest of his colleagues. We are disposed therefore to attribute the comparative obscurity into which his name has now fallen to the singular moderation of his character, and his freedom from many of the vices which are engendered by political ambition. In that age of intrigue and self-seeking, not a suspicion of treachery, not a shadow of any transaction that was underhand or disingenuous, ever sullied the reputation of Lord Liverpool. He was neither a proud nor an overbearing man, and what is still more to the purpose, it is clear that he did not court responsibility, and willingly allowed to others as much as they chose to take of the credit due really to himself. Both in 1806, and again in 1809, he might, according to Mr. Yonge, have been Prime Minister had he chosen. But he recoiled from the first place, nor did he finally take it till he saw that without him the Tory party must be broken up, and the Whigs admitted to the citadel. Thus he was not a man either to originate a great policy, to make personal enemies, or to be mixed up in political intrigues, and back-stairs conspiracies. His career accordingly was deficient in all those elements which excite wonder and curiosity. No 'revelations,' no scandals, no racy anecdotes were to be expected from his private papers. There were no aspersions on his character which his family might have been eager to refute; no passages in his career which might seem to require vindication. Thus many of the ordinary motives to which the publication of political biographies and the private papers of deceased statesmen may reasonably be attributed, were in this case wanting. And the literary warfare which usually follows such productions, and keeps alive the memory of men not above mediocrity has not yet been kindled by the quiet virtues of Lord Liverpool. Lord Liverpool, however, is in our own opinion much more entitled to the gratitude and admiration of posterity than some statesmen statesmen who have enjoyed much more of it. He was one of that class of ministers whom we should be very glad to see more numerous patient, prudent, and patriotic; careless of his own fame so that those measures were pursued which he considered for the public good; shunning rather than courting popular applause, and by his clear common-sense, his unselfishness, and his equanimity, solving problems and surmounting difficulties which more brilliant men are wont either to create or to exasperate. As a minister to whom England owes much, both for his public conduct and his private example, Lord Liverpool was fully entitled to all the honours of biography; and although by the general reader his life will be found less interesting than that of a Peel or a Canning, yet to politicians, if impartially studied, it will hardly be less instructive. Though the son of a peer, Mr. Jenkinson was not within the charmed circle of the 'great families,' some connexion with which was necessary even to a Tory, who had neither glittering talents nor professional distinction to bring him into public notice. The Jenkinsons were a wealthy county family, long seated at Walcot, near Charlbury, in Oxfordshire. The first who raised the family to consequence is said to have been that Antony Jenkinson who, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, was distinguished as a traveller and diplomatist. His descendant in 1620 purchased the manor of Hawkesbury, in Gloucestershire. And in 1661 the Jenkinson of that day was made a baronet by Charles II. They represented Oxfordshire in Parliament for many generations. But about the middle of the last century they were compelled to part with the Walcot property, and henceforth their connexion with the county of Oxford seems to have been lost. The heir to the title at the accession of George III. was Charles Jenkinson, who, after being secretary to Lord Bute, became Secretary at War under Lord North, a Commissioner of Trade under Mr. Pitt, Baron Hawkesbury of Hawkesbury in 1786, and Earl of Liverpool ten years afterwards. The Jenkinsons were just the kind of people whom Mr. Pitt liked, and the son was soon in a position where it was his own fault if he did not rise higher than the father. Robert Banks Jenkinson was born on the 7th of June, 1770, and was educated at Charterhouse and Christchurch, where he and Canning were contemporaries. He was returned to Parliament for the borough of Appleby and the borough of Ryde at the same time, electing to sit for the latter, when he was barely of age; and immediately distinguished himself in debate; though the compliments paid him at the time seem scarcely to have been justified by his subsequent reputation as an orator. After the breaking out out of the war he paid a visit to the Continent, and stayed some time at Coblentz while the Austrian and Prussian armies were quartered in that fortress. He speaks highly of the discipline and personal appearance of the Prussian soldiers, but thinks that Austria, owing to the greater magnitude of her empire, and her more plentiful supplies of men, must prove in the long run the stouter belligerent of the two: a calculation that was verified by events. And he quotes a curious saying of the Duke of Brunswick, that no country need be alarmed at the prospect of a Prussian invasion, because the Prussian soldiers were insensible to female beauty. Ils sont grands bêtes,' the Duke continued, 'mais pourtant ils savent bien leur affaire. On his return home he was appointed to a seat at the India Board: and three years afterwards he was made Master of the Mint, a post that he occupied down to the retirement of Mr. Pitt. In the Addington Administration Lord Hawkesbury was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and in that capacity negotiated the Peace of Amiens, and conducted the long and vexatious correspondence with the French Government which ended in a renewal of the war. In this correspondence we are informed for the first time of a curious scheme that was devised in Paris for bribing the family of Napoleon to dissuade him from his demands on England. Joseph, Lucien, and Josephine are the three Bonapartes named. Talleyrand thought it might be done, and meant to get something by the job. Lord Whitworth, however, was less sanguine, and the result justified his foresight. This notable device broke down on more than one point. It was not repudiated by the English Ministry; but Addington and Hawkesbury did not see how it was possible to go higher than a hundred thousand pounds. If a much larger sum were expended how would it be possible to account for it to the House of Commons? Whitworth thought nothing could be done under at least a million; and that the bargain would be cheap at two. But while the Secretary and the Ambassador were disputing about the price, Joseph and Lucien and Madame, who were all quite willing to earn it, seem to have discovered that the task was beyond their powers; and though it was never formally abandoned, the English ambassador soon became convinced of its futility, and demanding his passports quitted Paris on the 12th of May. On the 18th of that month war was declared against France, No objections of any moment were raised to the principle of the war, however severely the conduct of Ministers was criticised. But it led to the downfall of Addington. Though incapable of anything like factious opposition, Mr. Pitt was compelled |