those famous "Hours of Idleness." Everybody has heard of Kit North, but comparatively few of Prof. Wilson. We do not care to remember how many days he lectured at the University on Moral Philosophy, but his Noctes Ambrosianæ are in everlasting remembrance.

By such and similar citations that our readers can supply for themselves nearer home, we would not be understood as disparaging the professional litterateur. Only it is a notorious fact in literature that its things of beauty, which are "a joy forever," have been spontaneous effusions rather than forced productions under the lash of the taskmaster. Howsoever diligently the editor plods in his sanctum, the pastor in his study, the surgeon with his scalpel, the accountant at his desk, the sweet savor of their literary fame exhales quietly outside, like the fragrance of a June rose, floating in through the open window. And these "walks of literature," with their Pierian springs, remind one more and more of the malls and fountains of a park, where ministers, doctors, lawyers, etc., escape from dull care and drudgery to take an hour's pleasant stroll and refresh themselves for the toil of to-morrow.

In closing the present volume, our author expresses the hope that these chapters are not to be his last. Nor should we wish them to be. The vein he has been working through three successive volumes is far from being exhausted; and many lessons are yet left for him to transcribe for us from the book of life.

In gathering up our final impressions, there is one, as to the nature and use of leisure, upon which we must add a closing remark. So, then, leisure is not the synonym for "nothing to do," but a pleasant transition from one employment to another. The common motto of the day seems to be hard work under high pressure till the system breaks down, and then-no work at all. Leisure, also, is associated with the country, and endless activity with the town. Summer visitors tire of our dull quietness, and we pass a winter's day in the metropolis dumbfounded by its sights and sounds. But our country parson in town is in a fair way to reconcile opposites, and reveal a golden mean between these extremes.

Any man may find enough to do in the shades of rural seclusion as well as under the shadow of city walls. Must, however, wearing out or rusting away be the two alternatives? No! for enough hours may be spared from hard work to obviate the wear, and enough leisure labors be indulged in to prevent the rust. The world, indeed, have not yet learned the secret of turning their hora subsecive to good account, and the old adage about idleness still finds too frequent application. We thank those writers who are redeeming these "waste hours" for a worthy end, and well may we exclaim with Cowper,

"How various his employments, whom the world

Calls idle !"

ARTICLE V.-ENGLAND FROM 1760 TO 1860.

The Constitutional History of England, since the Accession of George the Third. 1760 to 1860. By THOMAS ERSKINE MAY, C. B. Vol. 1. Boston: Crosby & Nichols. 1862.

SIR Edward Bulwer Lytton, who is a sagacious statesman as well as a great novelist, has wisely said that the rivalries of parties are "the sinews of freedom." Doubtless the example of his own country afforded him the ground for his reflection; for it is in a great measure owing to the activity of parties in Parliament and through the press, that Great Britain has, within the century just passed, made such substantial improvements in her ancient constitution. If, indeed, we consider the nations generally, we discover that the presence or absence of party zeal is attended by a large margin of liberty, or an undue influence exerted by some single department of government. If we contemplate the arbitrary polities of France, Austria, and Russia, we find the liberty of press and speech restrained, and only one ostensible party-that which sustains the reigning dynasty. If there be an opposition, as of course there is, it is repressed by the dominant authority, and finds vent only in low mutterings and in secluded places. The promptness manifested by despots to quell even verbal opposition to their less important measures, indicates that they recognize in a free press and in freedom of political action, a great step made toward their overthrow and the establishment of liberal principles. Partisan rivalry, then, is a means resulting in liberty; while, on the other hand, its suppression is an indication of despotism. By considering the state of parties in the liberal polities of America, Great Britain, and Italy, we find that a vigorous, and yet constitutional opposition, quick to discern and to expose the errors of the party which is intrusted with the power, always professing to act in the spirit of the laws, and seldom descending to the arts of faction and intrigue,

seems to guarantee a just equipoise between the inherently antagonistic elements of the executive and the people. The gradual development of civil liberty from the action of parties, each restraining the other, and each throwing its weight into an opposite scale, is admirably exemplified by the constitutional history of Great Britain within the past century. Mr. Thomas Erskine May, C. B., of London, has undertaken the task of tracing that development, and has presented to the public a volume which exhibits much industry and research, and appears to carry out very well the plan proposed by the author.

The portion of the work which has already appeared, contains an account of the vicissitudes of the parties into which the nation has been divided, from 1760 to 1860; the modifications which the royal prerogative has undergone; the limits within which aristocratic influence has been confined; the continually increasing power of the House of Commons, and its innovations upon the other estates; and the relations of Parliament with the crown, the people, and the laws of the realm. It is well worth our while to contemplate these changes; which, while they have preserved the genius of the ancient constitution, have yet so modified it that the preponderance of power, which a century ago resided in the crown, has been transferred to the representatives of the people; and while they have not overthrown the monarchical form, they have certainly drawn nearer and nearer to the spirit of republican doctrines.

From the time of the abdication of James the Second to the accession of George the Third, the great Whig party held the power almost without interruption. They had been chiefly instrumental in the achievement of the revolution. They had secured the succession of the Brunswick line. They possessed to a great degree the old families and the preponderance of the wealth in the nation. They had suppressed the rebellion which, in 1745, had threatened to restore the heir of the exiled dynasty, and dethrone the reigning house. In the opposition were mainly the nonjuring clergy and prelates, the malcontents who had opposed the revolution and the act of settlement, and those who, it was thought, did not look with dis

favor upon the northern insurrections. The two first sovereigns of the House of Brunswick gave up to the Whigs the undisputed confidence of the court, and left to them the control of the executive, while they themselves turned their attention to the care of their electoral dominions.

George the Third found the great popular leader, William Pitt, at the head of affairs. This statesman possessed to a remarkable degree, the confidence of the people. He had conducted with success and splendor a long and tedious war. He had brought to his administration order, promptness, and exactness. Never had minister been so successful in every movement, or so idolized by every class. It was hoped that the new king would continue so useful a servant. But George came to the throne under circumstances materially different from those under which his two predecessors had assumed power. He was a native-born Englishman. He had been educated by English tutors, and comprehended thoroughly English manners, opinions, and institutions. His early life had been spent in the court of his father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, who, from his enmity to the king, had espoused the cause, and assumed the leadership of the Tory opposition. He was, at the time of his accession, under the influence of the Princess dowager, who was a bitter and persistent Tory, as well as a proud and ambitious woman. His own nature was haughty and self-willed, and he readily imbibed the precepts carefully impressed upon him in his early years, which persuaded him that he, and not the people, was the true source of law and government. He ascended the throne with a fixed determination, not only to secure the royal prerogative in its present limits, but to elevate it to the paramount authority in the constitution. To recover that preponderance which had been wrested from the Stuarts, to bring the House of Commons into subordination to the crown, and to acquire for himself an unlimited control over commerce, the colonies, the army, and the treasury, were the designs which the young monarch proposed to himself to accomplish. Within a year after his assumption, so vigorously had he pursued his policy, the whole aspect of the administration was changed. Pitt and Temple had gone