by far than we who arrogate to ourselves the name, all the while compassing ourselves around with things perishing and base; but it is because of this true life, which we deem the condition of a spiritual existence, that we feel our souls revolt from the notion that they who possess it can be brought back to satisfy our small relationship-brought back through the means of gross material things-brought back through money and mercenary beings, and pieces of furniture! We cannot trust ourselves to say more on this theme. They who have not the force of mind to reject, indignantly and at once, any proposition tending to draw them within the fatal circle of superstition, must be left to work their way back as well as they can. Degraded, one would think, they must be, in their own eyes; but perhaps rebuked and taught, so as only a bitter experience can rebuke and teach-meanwhile, let the experimenters, just hovering on the verge of the senseless and unhallowed trial, take care; for one really sincere person, beckoning them on, the probability is there are ten who want the comfort of companionship in their folly-who feel they have lost their character for good sense beyond redemption, and would like to have a few names on their side by way of apology, and to show us they have at least gone wrong in good company.

The history of the lectures delivered at the Royal Institution is pretty well known. Professor Faraday, fearing that his own state of health would prevent his pursuing to its usual extent his ordinary course, suggested the substitution of a course of lectures on education, to be delivered successively by eminent men. The different lecturers selected each his own special subject. Professor Tyndall, more thoroughly entering, as it seems to us, into Mr. Faraday's meaning than any one, complains of his own announcement of a subject being materially altered in the course of printing the titles of lectures. meant," he says, "to lecture on the importance of the study of physics as a means of education;' but the corrected proof has the following substituted word,

"I

On the importance of physics as a branch of education.' . . The two words appear to me to suggest two radically distinct modes of viewing the subject before us.. Regarding the education of the human mind as the improvement and development of the mental faculties, I consider the study of physics to be a means towards the attainment of those objects. Of course, from this point of view, I degrade physics into an implement of culture, and I mean to do so, to a great extent; for the general exposition of the

intellectual powers implies both the acquisition of specific knowledge and the ability to render it productive. There is this great difference between those who pursue a thing as a branch, and those who use it as a means; in the latter case the knowledge imparted is truly power; whereas in the former case, it may be the reverse."

Accordingly, the learned and lively Professor delivers himself of some admirable thoughts, exceedingly well expressed, on the benefit of the study of physics; on the order of communication which will best ensure the attainment of the desired good; then (for it is impossible not to get prac tically to the obnoxious term and idea, "Branch,") on the particular uses of the several subjects included in the term Physics; and, lastly, on the classes of persons to whom such instruction may be of the most undoubted use.

It is easy to see that Professor Tyndall comes to his task with a mind deeply impressed with the humiliating truths of which his predecessor Mr. Faraday had spoken a fortnight before in the same place. Like him, he is sadly conscious of the wide-spread fault of presumptuous judgment, and, though not repeating him in words, intimates much that is of consequence to be remembered.

Among the remaining lecturers we incline to rate most highly Professor Paget on Physiology, and Dr. Hodgson on Economic Science. In the very able lecture delivered by the latter are some remarks on Mr. Dickens' latest work, "Hard Times," which seem to us just and well put.

Mr. Dickens is sufficiently exaggerative to throw discredit on his truths; but yet that there should be scope and room for such a tale at all-that, not among the ignorant of schools only, but among many who have had experience of them, there should be a feeling that, on the whole, he has got hold of a fact and a dangerous tendency which those who love their fellow-creatures should not be slow to perceive, is one of the signs of the times, and we have no desire to ignore it. We feel confident that political economists and that many educators of the people rely by far too much on intellectual information and clearness in a certain round of facts, for the improvement of the poor. The great fault we are disposed to find with Mr. Dickens, besides his unreasonable exaggerations and unnatural characters, is that he does not paint something higher and better for our example and help. He is right, surely, in his perception of the cold cheerlessness of the facts of a calculating bodily life; but he should show what may be done by more genial cultiva

tion. He tells us what is evil, but there is scarce a word of good. We have ourselves many and obstinate rebellings against the class of educators who want to keep the poor wholly within the circle of "useful" facts. The poor man needs, as much as any one, amusement, enjoyment, ideas beyond his immediate vision; but this requires to be shewn in a better way than by finding fault with the short-comings of our time. We trust examples will be given as the world goes on of greater sympathy between the classes of society. No one has yet felt or done half so much for this desirable end as that charming writer and thinker, Mr. Helps. May he not grow tired of the task, but give us more and more reason to bless the author of the "Claims of Labour" and "Companions of my Solitude."

Hungary and its Revolutions, from the Earliest Period to the Nineteenth Century. With a Memoir of Louis Kossuth. By E. O. S. This title-page does not convey a correct idea of the volume to which it is prefixed. It should have been reversed: Memoir of Kossuth, with a brief Outline of the Annals of Hungary. The history occupies about one hundred and fifty pages; the biography above three times that amount. It is but fair, however, to state that the historical resumé is skilfully drawn up, and we have a very clear array brought before us of the houses of Arped, of Anjou, Luxembourg, and Austria, of Hapsburg, and of Hapsburg Lorraine, to which in succession Hungary has, willingly or reluctantly, acknowledged submission.

The biography is highly eulogistic, and the author is evidently in love with his hero, who, indeed, is a man in whom even his adversaries recognise with many faults splendid endowments. We do not find much of new information in the memoir, but scattered details have been linked together, and a well-sustained story is one of the results. The most important part of the biography is that in which E. O. S. meets the charge, often brought forward against Kossuth, of having once been guilty of a misappropriation of funds which he held in trust. We will give the explanation of Kossuth's advocate in his own words. It is only necessary to premise that Kossuth, at the period referred to below, was passionately addicted to gambling:

"One evening, after having received money for the Countess Szápary, he thoughtlessly staked all he had about his person, without considering that only part of it was his own. The sum belonging to her did not exceed twenty or thirty pounds, which he immediately repaid to

her account; but he had been observed by one jealous of his influence, who hastened to report the whole matter to the 'countess, and to represent Kossuth to her in as disadvantageous a light as possible. Without hesitation he confessed his fault, and she was so entirely satisfied with the explanation, that she continued to place the same confidence in him as before, and the whole circumstance would have been forgotten had not the malice of his enemies brought it forward on every occasion. They continued to intrigue against him until at the expiration of another year he resigned his office (as the countess's lawyer), and at the election for the Diet of 1832 accepted that of delegate for the Countess Szápary and some other magnates in the county of Pesth."

Such is, no doubt, a fair statement of this much-canvassed case; but a moralist would necessarily observe that at the moment Kossuth had played away his client's money, he stood in a very ugly position. Dr. Dodd did not intend to cheat Lord Chesterfield, but he was hanged notwithstanding. Kossuth repaired his false step, but his reputation trips through it; and young readers will do well to mark and remember that one folly may poison the most honest of after-lives.

Robespierre: a Tragedy. By Henry Bliss, one of Her Majesty's Council.This tragedy is published under a very gay exterior, and it reminds us of the Robespierre in Mr. Ward's picture, all sky-blue and frippery without, and something very mysterious within. This piece, moreover, is in verse; not the verse of Racine, but the rhymed colloquialisms of Victor Hugo, -and a very long way after that writer too. If ever our readers have seen a sad story told by Italian ballerinas, in action set to music and dancing of a somewhat grotesque character, they may have some idea of the "jingle" which runs through this tragedy of " Robespierre," the principal character in which would suit Mr. Robson, so mingled seems the sadness and the humour, or rather so often does the gravity look like gaiety. Here is a speciTheresa says to Tallien (63)-Save France, and save her anarchs from their crimes!

men.

And, long farewell! and think of me sometimes-A sunbeam broken from the diamond's prism, Or night-bird's cadence from the vast abysm. Wherein our readers will be reminded of the familiar rhymes touching the man who takes what "is n't his'n," being shut up as he deserves to be in some dark "pris'n." There is no lack of similar metrical beauties in this "tragedy." Had the author less facility for mere rhyming,

eminent place, were the leviathan possessors of property and power, and the commonalty of the realm, the middle classes, were nothing at all. The build. ings indicate something more. They shew not only the wealth and power of those who built them, but that they were constructed for protection against force and hostile violence. Those who lived within those walls were not at ease, they were not on terms of peace and love with their neighbours in the town. The power represented by those massive gateways and those high walls did not conciliate the love of those it domineered over. It did not desire either their progress and improve ment. The object of that power was its own selfish aggrandisement, the maintenance of odious and exclusive privileges, and the constant oppression of the middle and commercial classes. At Bury there were frequent collisions between the monks and the townspeople. In 1267 the abbey was reduced almost to a heap of ruins; and again it was plundered in 1381 by the rioters of Jack Straw. These were not isolated and accidental riots caused by the turbulence of the burghers; but it was the expansive power of the trade and commerce of the middle classes which played so important a part in the whole history of English liberty, struggling for freedom from the vexatious restrictions and tyranny of the feudal lords, and at last like steam bursting through all the restraints with which it was attempted to confine it-and they succeeded at last-the power represented by the abbey gates and walls is gone! Free commerce and liberty have survived."

After Lord A. Hervey's discourse, the company proceeded to visit the various features of the remains of the abbey, the churches, and the Norman house sup. posed to have been occupied by the Jews. Upon the first a memoir was read, under the Norman gatehouse, by Mr. Samuel Tymms, F.S.A. the Secretary of the Suffolk Institute; and Mr. Parker, of Oxford, took the opportunity of pointing out the leading characteristic of the first Norman masonry, that it was entirely worked by the axe and not by the chisel, a criterion by which the earlier work, including its sculptured ornaments, may be distinguished from the later. The company were next entertained by the Suffolk Institute at dinner in the Town Hall; and afterwards visited the halls of West Stow and Hengrave and the churches of Risby and Little Saxham, the remarkable features of which were briefly pointed out by the Rev. Henry Creed and Mr. S. Tymms.

Saturday, July 8. In the SECTION OF HISTORY Edward Freeman, esq. M.A.

read an essay on the Accession of Harold II. in continuation of his paper at Chichester, "On the Life and Death of Earl Godwine." In examining the history of this period too much care cannot be taken in weighing the evidence of the various authorities and estimating their comparative value. Statements are found so various and contradictory that, without considerable pains in this way, the truth can never be attained. The writers nearest in combined time and place are the Saxon Chronicle and Florence of Worcester, whose narrative should always be taken as the groundwork, filled up only by such details from other writers as are not inconsistent with their statements. As to the accession of Harold these strictly English writers give a straightforward, intelligible, and consistent account, witnessing distinctly to three facts,-1. that Harold was named as his successor by Eadward; 2, that he was regularly elected King in the Witenagemot; 3, that he was solemnly consecrated by Ealdred, Archbishop of York. The contrary statements of the Norman and Normanizing writers, William of Poitou, Ordericus Vitalis, William of Jumièges, William of Malmesbury, &c. are, on the other hand, remarkable for their confusion, indefiniteness, and inconsistency with one another. Instead of definite facts we for the most part get mere declamatory expressions of abuse, or at most statements of the vaguest possible kind. On the third point they directly contradict the English authorities, some saying that Harold had no sort of coronation at all, others that he crowned himself, others that he was crowned by Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury. The motive of this last misstatement is clear; Stigand was held to be an uncanonical occupant of his see, consequently a consecration by him might be considered invalid, a question of considerable importance at a time when great value was attached to that ceremony. The facts of the bequest of Eadward in favour of Harold and his election by the Witan are incontestable. The narrative of Sir F. Palgrave, in which everything is turned to Harold's disadvantage, is very ingeniously composed from various chronicles; one statement from one, one from another, though many of them are taken from writers of no authority whatever, and others are actually self-contradictory. Nor do his constitutional speculations rest upon any surer basis. The English crown had always been clective; and, though the choice of the Witan was ordinarily confined to the royal family, yet the same principle which authorised them to pass

* See our Magazine for August, 1853.

by a disqualified member of that family in favour of a better qualified kinsman would also authorise them to pass by the whole family, when, as in the present case, all its members were disqualified. As the same writers lay stress upon Harold's nomination by the King and on his election by the Witan, the natural inference is that the former was not an absolute bequest, but only a strong recommendation to the electors. On the other hand, the Norman writers assert that Eadward bequeathed the crown to William of Normandy, and that Harold swore fealty to William as Eadward's successor. The strictly English writers are silent on both points, yet they were so constantly asserted by William and his partizans that it is impossible to doubt but that they contain some groundwork of truth. The former is told by the Norman writers in several contradictory versions, some of which are wholly incredible. The only probable one is that Eadward made William some kind of promise during his exile in Normandy in his youth, which of course was set aside by his later bequest to Harold. The oath of Harold to William is told also with an equal amount of contradiction as to time, place, and circumstances. The probable truth is to be found in the story of Malmesbury that Harold's presence in Normandy was quite accidental, he having been wrecked on the coast of Ponthieu while out on a yachting expedition. He was there imprisoned by Guy, Count of that province, and released through the interference of Duke William. His oath to William was evidently compulsory, and of no validity. But it should be carefully remarked, as illustrating the feelings of the age, that an oath taken on the relics of the saints should be regarded as more binding than one on the gospel, and the more so as the relics were introduced unknown to Harold.

The figure labelled " Ælfgyfa" in the Bayeux tapestry has often excited discussion.

Putting several hints in the chronicles together, it seems probable that Harold was accompanied by his sister of that name, who is mentioned in Domesday, by his brother Wulfnoth, and his nephew Haco, and that Wulfnoth was left as a hostage with William. This would account for the origin of the incredible statement that Wulfnoth and Haco were sent over as hostages for Godwine after his reconciliation with Eadward.

Chronicle draws a glowing character of him, and Florence describes him as the very model of a patriot King. Now it is clearly impossible that all the reforms and legislative enactments which that writer attributes to him could have been effected in his stormy reign of nine months, but we may fairly conclude that we have here a true portraiture of his earlier government as Earl. In his own foundation of Waltham he was naturally extolled as a saint. Even the Normans, lavish as they are of violent expressions, bring no definite charge against him beyond his supposed usurpation and perjury, which are easily disposed of.

In the SECTION OF ANTIQUITIES the first paper read was by the Rev. C. H. Hartshorne on the funeral of Katharine of Arragon. After her divorce, the Queen resided first at Buckden palace, then at Fotheringay castle, and, after leaving that place on account of its unwholesomeness, lastly at Kimbolton castle, where she died on the 7th Jan. 1536, and her body was interred in the abbey-church of Peterborough on the 25th of the same month; the chief mourner being Lady Bedingfield, wife of Sir Edmund Bedingfield. Mr. Hartshorne has recovered very full details of the ceremonies, and their attendant expenses. The body was deposited betwixt two pillars on the north side of the choir, near the great altar. According to custom the hearse was left over the tomb, covered with its rich pall, and continued there till a body of the Parliamentary forces in 1643, amongst other acts of desecration, violated this and other monuments, by breaking down the rails that inclosed the place, and taking away the pall covering the hearse; the hearse itself was overthrown, the gravestone displaced that lay over the body, and nothing was left remaining of that regal tomb, to use the words of the narrator of these sacrilegious outrages, "but only a monument of of their own shame and villainy." Nor to the present day does any memorial mark the spot where the royal body was interred. This neglect of so illustrious a lady may excite surprise; but the feeling is but transitory, and we need not wonder that Queen Katharine's remains are thus consigned to oblivion, or that the spot is merely pointed out by tradition, when the monuments of some of our most illustrious monarchs are permitted to fall into decay, and a trifling outlay would rescue them from destruction. In the course of the lecture Mr. Hartshorne exhibited the pall which is said to have covered the corpse of Prince Arthur, and which was