Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

the argumentative value of facts. There being the closest inter-
course between the families of the Clapham sect, a boy of promis-
ing abilities met with much attention, and many willing instruc-
tors of his youthful curiosity. Besides, young "Tom," bright and
loquacious, was an especial favourite with Hannah More,
"the
high priestess of the brotherhood," and had his fancy quickened
and his ambition fired by her anecdotes of the literary men of last
century.

He was not sent to any of the great public schools. He received his earliest instruction at a small school in Clapham. "At the age of twelve he was placed under the care of the Rev. Mr Preston, first at Shelford, afterwards near Buntingford, in the neighbourhood of Cambridge." With Mr Preston he seems to have remained until ready to enter the University.

In his nineteenth year he began residence at Trinity College, Cambridge. In after-life he used to mention with regret that at College he spent very little time on the prevailing study of mathematics; but classics he prosecuted with such success, that in 1821 he gained the high distinction of the Craven scholarship. A large part of his time was given to pursuits not so strictly academical; he was a distinguished orator at the Union, and twice carried away the Chancellor's medal for English verse -in 1819 for a poem on Pompeii, and in 1821 for a poem on Evening. He took his degree of B.A. in 1822, and in October 1824 was elected Fellow of his College.

Very soon after taking his degree, and while waiting in College for his fellowship, he set himself strenuously to fulfil his ambition in literature. His first efforts were contributed to 'Knight's Quarterly Magazine,' between June 1823 and November 1824. From these early productions we can see that he did not work at random, but to some extent pursued definite objects. Thus, in his "Frag ments of a Roman Tale," and his "Scenes from Athenian Revels," we can discern a purpose-a purpose that he often recommends as (the highest aim of the historian,—namely, to realise the private life of the bygone generations. Again, from his studies of Dante,

Rearging puvade Petrarch, Cowley, Milton, and the Athenian orators, we may infer life, making himself familiar with the leading masters of style in dif

that he worked upon the orthodox plan for literary aspirants, of

ferent languages. Then we have an indication of a mechanical plan of working. His contributions appear in pairs-a grave composition coupled with something lighter. If this was not the arrangement of the publisher, we may suppose that he sought the relief of variety, and that from the first he worked upon a deliberate resolve to excel in all kinds of composition.

At

In 1824 he made his first appearance as a public speaker. an Abolitionist meeting in Freemasons' Hall, he seconded one of

the resolutions, and his speech is said to have created some talk among outsiders.

The performance that first brought him conspicuously into notice was his article on Milton, contributed to the Edinburgh Review' in August 1825. He was called to the bar in 1826; but though he took chambers in the Temple and joined the Northern Circuit, he probably gave little time to legal business, and he made no name as a barrister. It was his literary power that found him patronage. In 1827 he received from Lord Lyndhurst a commis- . sionership of bankrupts. And in 1830, through the influence of Lord Lansdowne, he was returned for the borough of Calne, and entered the House of Commons.

In the Reform debates of 1831 and 1832 he was one of the most effective speakers. He went strongly and unreservedly with the Whigs. In 1832, as an acknowledgment of his zeal for Reform, he was returned by the newly enfranchised borough of Leeds. In the same year he was appointed Secretary to the Board of Control. In the first session of the Reformed Parliament he spoke against the repeal of the union with Ireland, in favour of a bill for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews, and in favour of a bill for depriving the East India Company of their exclusive trade with China and other commercial privileges. In 1834 he was made president of a new law commission for India, and a member of the Supreme Council of Calcutta. In discharge of the duties of these lucrative offices he spent two years and a half in India, returning in 1838.

On his return from India he professed himself anxious to withdraw from politics, and devote his whole time to literature. He had not ceased, even when in India, to contribute to the Edinburgh Review'; but he wished now to settle down to his great project, the History of England from the Accession of James II.' This could not be. His party could not yet dispense with him. He was requested to stand for Edinburgh, and was elected in 1839, after very little opposition.

Re-entering Parliament, he was appointed Secretary at War, and retained the office till the fall of the Melbourne Ministry in 1841. In the general election of 1841 he was re-elected for Edinburgh without opposition. On the return of the Whigs to power in 1846, he obtained the office of Paymaster-General, and a seat in the Cabinet of Lord John Russell. Neither in office nor in opposition was he a silent member. His voice was heard on all questions of importance. On all party questions he stood by his party. He defended the war with China in 1840, assisted in beating down the Chartists, assailed Lord Ellenborough's administration of India, supported Lord John Russell's motion for an inquiry into the state of Ireland, and argued against loading slave-grown sugar

Lays

with heavy duties. On questions less strictly matters of party, he showed his natural liberality of spirit - supported the increased Maynooth Grant and the abolition of Theological Tests in the Scottish Universities, and resented in very strong language the attempt to deprive certain Dissenters of their chapels on the ground that they did not hold the opinions of the original possessors. In 1841 he carried a change in the laws of copyright. In 1846 hé supported an unsuccessful bill for limiting the labour of young persons in factories to ten hours a day.

In 1842 he published his 'Lays of Ancient Rome.' Both before and after this he wrote occasional verses. Though not quite so popular as his prose, his poetry was very widely read. Yet most people would gladly forego his Lays for another volume of the History.

In 1844 he wrote the last of his brilliant essays to the Edinburgh Review.' Ambitious of distinction as an orator and a statesman, he had never renounced his literary ambition. It was chiefly on his writings that he depended for durable fame. Even during his official residence in India he found time to write for the Review. These periodical contributions were now stopped, not because he henceforth threw himself into politics with undivided ardour, but because he was setting in earnest to his projected History.

In 1846 he was at the height of his political success. In 1847 came a change. He had kept his seat for Edinburgh since 1839. He had been re-elected in 1841 without opposition. But of late his conduct had been far from satisfactory to the mass of the electors. He had given deep offence to churchmen of all sects by the breadth of his views. He had spoken in most contemptuous terms of the persecution of Sir David Brewster by the Established clergy; he had roused the hatred of the Evangelicals by advocating the Maynooth Grant, and still more by his derisive mention of the "bray" of Exeter Hall, and the "prescriptive right" of its frequenters "to talk nonsense." In the general election of 1847, therefore, he stood third on the poll. This may be considered the end of his political life. He refused to offer himself for another seat, and retired to his study and his books. In 1852 the electors of Edinburgh returned him at their own expense, unasked, and without putting him to the trouble of a canvass; but he took little part in the business of the House. His only memorable speech was on the exclusion of the Master of the Rolls from the House of Commons, on which occasion he is said to have turned the scale by a hundred votes.

In 1849 appeared the first two volumes of his History. Very few books have been bought with such avidity. There was a demand for the work such as had not been known since the days of Byron and Scott.

The second two volumes were not published till 1855. Expectation had been on tiptoe, and the rush was almost greater than for the first instalment.

[ocr errors]

While carrying on his History, he turned aside to write for the 'Encyclopedia Britannica' some biographies that he had more or less crudely sketched in his Essays'-the Lives of "Atterbury" (1853), "Bunyan" (1854), "Goldsmith" (1856), "Johnson" (1856), and "Pitt" (1859). These works are highly finished, and are considered by many to be the most favourable specimens of his style.

Meantime honours were coming in to crown his labours. In 1849 he was elected Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow, and was made a Fellow of the Royal Society. The year 1857 was especially fruitful of such rewards to successful toil. In that year he was elected a Foreign Member of the French Academy, and of the Prussian Order of Merit, High Steward of Cambridge; and in the autumn he was raised to the peerage as Baron Macaulay of Rothley-the first literary man to receive such a distinction.

He did not long enjoy his honours. His multifarious labours began to tell upon him. He was threatened with one of the maladies that too surely follow upon a life of excitement and overstrained energy-derangement of the action of the heart. Latterly he was prohibited from public speaking: at his installation as High Steward of Cambridge he simply bowed his acknowledgments, and made no speech. He had drafted and partly written a fifth volume of his History, but did not live to publish it. The last composition published during his life was his biography of Pitt. He died at his residence, Holly Lodge, Kensington, on the 28th of December 1859.

We cannot say of Macaulay himself what he said of Johnson —that we are as familiar with his personal appearance as with the faces that have surrounded us from childhood. The explanation probably is, that there was nothing in his appearance to draw particular attention. He seems to have been a fair complexioned, good-looking man, about the middle height, full-bodied, and with a tolerably firm carriage. He is described as "robustlooking." Crabb Robinson says that his features were regular, but that they had not the delicacy one expects to see in men of genius and fine sensibility. His voice was strong and commanding, but its effect was marred by a quick and excited articulation.

He had a vigorous constitution. He was one of the favoured few that draw, as De Quincey says, the double prize of a fine intellect and a healthy stomach. Had he been more economical

F

of his strength, he might have lived much longer in full exercise of his faculties.

we mean?

It is often said that a man's powers cannot be fairly valued till several generations after his death; that his contemporaries and their immediate posterity can seldom judge with impartiality. Many persons repeat this dictum in something like the above form without ever asking themselves, What kind of powers do If is taken to mean intellectual power as dispower We can probably played in books, the dictum is probably true. judge better of the amount of intellect in a book than could have But while posterity been done by the writer's contemporaries. may give a juster award as respects the intellectual power shown in a book, it is much more likely to be unfair in its judgment of Intellect may be thrown into a man's general energy of intellect. other things than books, and if a man dazzles the judgment of his contemporaries, and obtains unmerited praise of his literary productions, the reason in all likelihood is that literature is not his only field of intellectual display.

Macaulay's brilliant command of expression, and confident and plausible deliverances on every subject of human interest, furnish a sufficient explanation of the extraordinary popularity of his works. But undoubtedly the popular admiration of the man's abilities was heightened by the current traditions of his oratory, his of conversation, and his astonishing feats of memory. powers Everything combined to convey the impression of amazing versatility. Now, when his books are calmly judged, and his work estimated by special authorities in the various fields that he traversed with such confidence, there is a danger that we undervalue his powers, and estimate his whole intellectual force by the part of it that was spent upon his books. If he wished his fame to rest upon the quality, and not upon the quantity, of his literary productions, he should have chosen a more limited field, and not voraciously aspired to be pre-eminent in three such departments as poetry, history, and criticism. And if he wished his fame to rest upon his literary productions alone, whether in their quantity or in their quality, he should not have dissipated his energies so profusely in directions that are of little avail for He aspired to eminence not only as a permanent literary renown. man of letters, but as an orator and as a legislator. Besides all this, attested by substantial documents, he spent, if we may credit circulating traditions, an ordinary man's allowance of energy in the excitement of conversation, and in the indulgence of an incontinent appetite for reading. In conversation he did not give and take like De Quincey: once started on a theme, he ran on As regards his as in a set prelection, without break or pause. reading, the report is that besides what he read for his literary

« ForrigeFortsæt »