defending a truism than any other writer would employ in supporting a paradox.  Of the rules of historical perspective, he has not the faintest notion.  There is neither foreground nor background in his delineation.  The wars of Charles the Fifth in Germany are detailed at almost as much length as in Robertson’s life of that prince.  The troubles of Scotland are related as fully as in M’Crie’s Life of John Knox.  It would be most unjust to deny that Dr. Nares is a man of great industry and research; but he is so utterly incompetent to, arrange the materials which he has collected that he might as well have left them in their original repositories.

Neither the facts which Dr. Nares has discovered, nor the arguments which he urges, will, we apprehend, materially alter the opinion generally entertained by judicious readers of history concerning his hero.  Lord Burleigh can hardly be called a great man.  He was not one of those whose genius and energy change the fate of empires.  He was by nature and habit one of those who follow, not one of those who lead.  Nothing that is recorded, either of his words or of his actions, indicates intellectual or moral elevation.  But his talents, though not brilliant, were of an eminently useful kind; and his principles, though not inflexible, were not more relaxed than those of his associates and competitors.  He had a cool temper, a sound judgement, great powers of application, and a constant eye to the main chance.  In his youth he was, it seems, fond of practical jokes.  Yet even out of these he contrived to extract some pecuniary profit.  When he was studying the law at Gray’s Inn, he lost all his furniture and books at the gaming table to one of his friends.  He accordingly bored a hole in the wall which separated his chambers from those of his associate, and at midnight bellowed through this passage threats of damnation and calls to repentance in the ears of the victorious gambler, who lay sweating with fear all night, and refunded his winnings on his knees next day.  “Many other the like merry jest,” says his old biographer, “I have heard him tell, too long to be here noted.”  To the last, Burleigh was somewhat jocose; and some of his sportive sayings have been recorded by Bacon.  They show much more shrewdness than generosity, and are, indeed, neatly expressed reasons for exacting money rigorously, and for keeping it carefully.  It must, however, be acknowledged that he was rigorous and careful for the public advantage as well as for his own.  To extol his moral character as Dr. Nares has extolled it is absurd.  It would be equally absurd to represent him as a corrupt, rapacious, and bad-hearted man.  He paid great attention to the interests of the state, and great attention also to the interest of his own family.  He never deserted his friends till it was very inconvenient to stand by them, was an excellent Protestant, when it was not very advantageous to be a Papist, recommended a tolerant policy to his mistress as strongly as he could recommend it without hazarding her favour, never put to the rack any person from whom it did not seem probable that useful information might be derived, and was so moderate in his desires that he left only three hundred distinct landed estates, though he might, as his honest servant assures us, have left much more, “if he would have taken money out of the Exchequer for his own use, as many Treasurers have done.”