Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/150

 14O Reviews of Books counts of the sea-fights, if he chose to pass by our professional naval historians. The accounts of naval duels are not accurate. Neither is the relation of the facts leading up to the firing on the Chesapeake by the Leopard. Yet no fair-minded American can find fault with the gen- eral account or the general conclusions. These criticisms fall to Mr. Fotheringham's share. On the other hand, even Mr. Brodrick departs from his judicial calm when he con- siders Irish events or Irish characters. O'Connell is almost the only person in the book who is treated with something less than his deserts, and whom the writer rarely mentions without a derogatory epithet. George IV. alone shares this unhappy distinction with the Irish cham- pion, but in George's case the judgment is fair and righteous altogether; in the case of O'Connell it is not so. A similar criticism must be made wherever the writer touches upon the action of the Irish people. He lacks sympathy with them ; he lacks understanding of them. In par- ticular he cannot forgive O'Connell and his followers for what he calls their ingratitude in refusing to support the government which granted Catholic Emancipation. Yet he admits that this government was forced to grant emancipation ; that it was nothing more or less than a capitula- tion to the Irish. It would more than task his abilities to explain to the world why the Irish or any one else should feel gratitude for a compulsory favor. A fault common in most English books is not avoided in this. Every- where the pages are crowded with wearisome and unessential details. Thus Mr. Brodrick never fails to name every member of a new admin- istration when the new administration comes into office. Similarly he seems to think it necessary to mention every fact in English history which occurred during the period under consideration. It is not that he does not discriminate between the essential and the unessential. He does this admirably, but he seems to lack the moral courage to throw over the comparatively worthless part of his cargo. The multifarious details add nothing to the force of the story, while they tend to distract and confuse the reader. Mr. Brodrick very properly stresses the importance of economic events in this period of English history, especially those economic facts which are connected with national politics. Thus he emphasizes Huskis- son's policy, pointing out that it necessarily led to free-trade and was intended to lead to it. Huskisson's merit in procuring the overthrow of the old Navigation acts and the adoption of reciprocity as a step towards eventual free-trade is well and clearly told and proper credit given to Huskisson's foresight and clearness of vision. On economic questions, generally, the author is much more at home than is customary with historians, and it is only to be regretted that he did not bestow a little more space upon the sufferings of the factory population and the causes of those sufferings than he has seen fit to do. It is true that these things are not overlooked, but they might justly be stressed more than they are.