study. We cannot withhold one of his parliamentary criticisms (February, 1805) on a most remarkable man, not more remarkable for his wonderful powers than his almost timid reserve, of whom it is but justice to glean every authentic reminiscence. Even Mr. Horner's heresy is worth preserving, as showing how deliberately he weighed and analysed all the means of commanding success as a parliamentary speaker :—

'There was one extraordinary oration that night-Sir William Grant's; quite a masterpiece of his peculiar and miraculous manner; conceive an hour and a half of syllogisms, strung together in the closest tissue, so artfully clear that you think every successive inference unavoidable; so rapid that you have no leisure to reflect where you have been brought from, or to see where you are to be carried; and so dry of ornament, or illustration, or refreshment, that the attention is stretched -stretched-racked. All this is done without a single note. And yet, while I acknowledge the great vigour of understanding displayed in such performances, I have a heresy of my own about Grant's speaking; it does not appear to me of a parliamentary cast, nor suited to the discussions of a political assembly. The effect he produces is amazement at his power; not the impression of his subject: now this is a mortal symptom. Besides this, he gives me a suspicion of sophistry, which haunts me through his whole deduction; though I have nothing immediately to produce, I feel dissatisfied, as if there were something that might be said. And, after all, there are no trains of syllogism, nor processes of intricate distinctions, in subjects that are properly political. The wisdom, as well as the common feelings that belong to such subjects, lie upon the surface in a few plain and broad lines: there is a want of genius in being very ingenious about them, and it belongs to talents of the second order to proceed with a great apparatus of reasoning.'-vol. i. pp. 285, 286.

The death of Mr. Pitt placed the government in the hands of Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox. Mr. Horner was not forgotten; he received and accepted the offer of a seat at the board of the commissioners for the Nabob of Arcot's debts, an unsalaried office, but which was to be remunerated at the close of the busiThis Horner thought at the time not likely to interfere with his legal studies.

ness.

I am most

'It is entirely,' he says, ' a business of legal arbitration. firmly determined to accept of no political situation under any circumstances that I can at present foresee: this may be a piece of superfluous virtue, as perhaps no such thing would ever be put in my power: it is a virtue, however, for which I believe I can answer, if the trial should come. Every day I have lived in London, and every hour since my own friends came into power, has driven and riveted this opinion into my mind, which I had already formed very clearly before I quitted Scotland. I believe my friends overrate my ambition immensely, or mistake it; my indolence, my love of quiet lazy pleasures, my habits of indulgence,

my

my gratifications in speculative truth, are so many pledges for my good conduct in this respect.'-vol. i. p. 356.

Then follows some pretty dalliance about a seat in parliament; ending, that at all events he had rather go in as an opposition member.' This was written March 25, 1806; but ere the ink was dry with which he penned these legal protestations—on the 23rd of June-comes the offer, from Lord Henry Petty, of a snug ministerial seat, through the intervention of Lord Kinnaird, we believe another old Edinburgh friend. It is said that when a man asks his friend's advice on two of the gravest subjects in lifemarrying, and publishing a book-one may be sure that, in the first case, all the tender process of proposal and acceptance is over; in the other, that the first sheets are in the hands of the printer. Much in this way Horner consults his excellent friend Lord Webb Seymour when he has gone so far as to express his willingness to accept of this proposal.' Grave, judicious, affectionate, as is the reply of Lord Webb Seymour, we must await a later opportunity of introducing the name of this accomplished man, and most wise and true friend (it is difficult to give higher praise), to the admiration of our readers.

Mr. Horner was returned for St. Ives in November, 1806, through the interest of Lord Kinnaird. Soon after the death of Mr. Fox, on the fall of the Whig government, this brief parliament came to an end. Mr. Horner was returned to the succeeding parliament, a short time after the general election, for the borough of Wendover, on the nomination of Lord Carrington. The good sense and modesty of Mr. Horner kept him clear of that rock on which so many young men of promise have been rrecoverably wrecked. He did not attempt to take the House by storm, to astonish it with a brilliant display, or to practise his legal eloquence on reluctant ears. He was not therefore the victim of his own vanity, nor, as men now are, of the vanity of his constituents. Let nomination boroughs have their due meed of fame: not merely do they deserve public gratitude for the great men of all parties and of all classes whom they introduced into the House, but they spared us those weary and interminable speeches which are addressed, not to the House, but to the constituencies-those speeches which, in adjourned debates, from the hour of seven to ten, echo over the vacant seats (then thinly occupied by a few more than forty members, who never dine, and can always sleep), and, through the aid of the faithful reporters, fly down the next morning to the wondering borough, where all the reading-rooms in the morning, and the George and Red Dragon' in the evening, resound with complacent gratulations on the eloquence, and doubtless the irresistible influence of

their new member. Mr. Horner at first spoke merely on matters of business, and that rarely, briefly, and always to the purpose. He appears, indeed, to have been more than usually assiduous in his legal studies during the early part of his parliamentary career. He went the western circuit, with what success eventually we are not clearly informed. His letters are more full of his holidays of travel and of repose in some of the picturesque scenes of England and Wales; they have more of literature than of law.

Mr. Horner went all lengths with his party in the condemnation of the seizure of the Danish fleet-that daring blow which history will judge rather on the authority of Buonaparte, in the conversations of his later days, than by the anti-ministerial diatribes of the time. Mr. Sydney Smith's letter shows how strongly he felt on this subject.

'He loved truth so much that he never could bear any jesting upon important subjects. I remember one evening the late Lord Dudley and myself pretended to justify the conduct of the government in stealing the Danish fleet. We carried on the argument with some wickedness against our graver friend: he could not stand it, but bolted indignantly out of the room; we flung up the sash, and, with loud peals of laughter, professed ourselves decided Scandinavians; we offered him not only the ships, but all the shot, powder, cordage, and even the biscuit, if he would come back; but nothing could turn him: he went home, and it took us a fortnight of serious behaviour before we were forgiven.'

But on the Spanish question Mr. Horner took his own line. He was too sincere and ardent a lover of liberty not to hail its first dim glimpses in the Peninsula. In the most depressing times, and among the most desponding friends, he was faithful to his trust in the undying energies of freedom. Many of his own party could not but discover, when too late, that this cold indifference to the cause of Spain-the avowed policy of abandoning the struggle, with what appeared to more ardent and generous minds a cowardly prostration before the genius of Buonapartecertainly lowered the Whigs of that day in public estimation, and seriously damaged, in more ways than one, the Edinburgh Review.' That he had openly declared his dissent from the views generally adopted by his friends at this great crisis was not likely, when dispassionately considered, to impair their confidence in his wisdom, or at least their respect for his caution.

6

How completely Mr. Horner thought for himself may be seen in the following passage from a letter to Mr. Jeffrey, which is remarkable also as showing the thoughts which occupied speculative minds, when forced upon the prophetic office by the darkening aspect of the times:

'In the situation to which the continent of Europe is reduced, and in the situation which England commands, I cannot imagine a general peace of any duration; and without it, we can have no peace with France. I rest very little argument now upon the personal character of Buonaparte: the direct effect of his name and genius, so prodigious for a certain period of time, is at length almost sunk in that change of the state of the world which he has effected. I rest no argument at all upon his particular designs against this country, which is the grand reason with our vulgar for perpetual war; because, though to prevail over England must be the final scope and aim of his ambition, without which the absolute disposal of the whole Continent leaves his love of glory unsatisfied, and would be insufficient to transmit his name to posterity as equal to those conquerors of former ages who overcame all that was great and civilised in their own time, and all that was opposed to them; yet his personal passion for making a conquest of us cannot be a better reason for war than the national design, pursued under all changes of government, which France has ever entertained against us, and which we have ever entertained against France. It is the natural condition and infirmity of powerful neighbours, which never can become a reason to either of them for refusing to make peace with the other, as long as they preserve anything near an equality of force for the maintenance of war. My view of our situation is taken from other circumstances. What is likely to be the state of the Continent for many years to come? And in the probable condition of the Continent, what must be the conduct of England, which (whatever her interest might be, if it could be managed for years together with perfect wisdom) cannot but be impelled by the voice of the people, and by the ancient habits of political as well as commercial connexion? If the whole Continent were to be tranquillised into one empire, and should slumber for years in repose under a vigilant and well-organised despotism, no fate could be intended for us but annexation to the mass; nor could we devise any safety for ourselves but by adopting public institutions, and by fostering sentiments of individual ambition and conduct, of which defensive war, and the most rigid prejudices of local patriotism, were the constant objects; but it is seldom that human affairs fall into such a forced state. It seems infinitely more probable that the new empire of France will be perpetually disturbed by efforts in one member or another to throw off the yoke in the north of Germany, for instance, where military genius might win a fair kingdom; or in the hereditary states of Austria, where the natives cannot yet have despaired of recovering their ancient independence. Should such chances arise, even if the struggle of Spain were over, I conceive it would be the duty of this country, and I am sure it would be unavoidable at any rate, to contribute from our resources every aid and encouragement to the insurgents. It is idle to sigh for peace, if it cannot be had upon system, and for a period to be sure of. England forms a part of Europe, and must share its vicissitudes and agitations.

'The point to be considered is, by what mode, and upon what principles, the war may be conducted, so as to afford the best chance of con

tributing

tributing to the ultimate restoration of independence to some of those kingdoms which never can be incorporated with France, from the diversity of race and languages. In my judgment we have only to act upon the principles by which Elizabeth was guided, and afterwards King William-forbearing all little bye objects of gain and aggrandisement, and keeping steadily in view, through all fortunes, and in the lowest depth of our despair, the ultimate partition of the Continent into independent states, and the revival of a public law in Europe. For such conduct, looking so far forward, much patience, and constancy, and public integrity, will be required; but it is a part worthy of this nation, and no more, in proportion to its present means, than it has done before.

You will consider me very belligerent: I do not know that I ever before exposed to you, or indeed to anybody else, the full extent of my warlike disposition. It has been growing upon me ever since the news of the memorable day at Aranjuez. I will not say there is no inconsistency between my present views of the question and those which induced me to give my vote in support of Whitbread's last motion for peace; but, besides having reflected more upon the whole subject, the main parts of it have undergone an essential alteration, both by the immense acquisitions of empire which Buonaparte has made since, and by the great example which the poor Spaniards have set to the rest of the world.'-vol. ii. pp. 69-73.

Unlike, as we believe, all the other eminent men concerned in the establishment of the Edinburgh Review,' Mr. Horner appears to have been early in favour of some parliamentary reform: his views of what ought to be attempted in that direction were at first, indeed, extremely moderate; but they seem to have grown much stronger as he became more deeply implicated in party matters. As he died, however, long before that controversy ripened to the day of experiment, we need not recur to it in connexion with his name.

But the times were now at hand when the subjects which Mr. Horner had made his peculiar study were to be forced upon public attention. What was called the Bullion Question, which branched out into every province of political economy, involved the profoundest principles, yet touched the actual interests of almost every individual in the community, could no longer be avoided. It was in the committee on the currency, in 1810, that he began to make himself felt: those with whom he acted, the few who really knew anything on the subject, could not but be impressed with his assiduity, his fairness, and the perspicacity of his mind, which enabled him to trace all these questions to their first principles, and to state the results with the utmost clearness of which they were capable; the large majority who knew nothing about it, but were anxious to think they understood it, could not

but