“The Westminster Review” for April, 1856, had for its leading article a paper by Mr. Froude, in which the critic awarded the highest praise to the work of the new historian.  As one of the earliest as well as one of the most important recognitions of the work, I quote some of its judgments.

“A history as complete as industry and genius can make it now lies before us of the first twenty years of the Revolt of the United Provinces; of the period in which those provinces finally conquered their independence and established the Republic of Holland.  It has been the result of many years of silent, thoughtful, unobtrusive labor, and unless we are strangely mistaken, unless we are ourselves altogether unfit for this office of criticising which we have here undertaken, the book is one which will take its place among the finest histories in this or in any language. . . .  All the essentials of a great writer Mr. Motley eminently possesses.  His mind is broad, his industry unwearied.  In power of dramatic description no modern historian, except perhaps Mr. Carlyle, surpasses him, and in analysis of character he is elaborate and distinct.  His principles are those of honest love for all which is good and admirable in human character wherever he finds it, while he unaffectedly hates oppression, and despises selfishness with all his heart.”

After giving a slight analytical sketch of the series of events related in the history, Mr. Froude objects to only one of the historian’s estimates, that, namely, of the course of Queen Elizabeth.

“It is ungracious, however,” he says, “even to find so slight a fault with these admirable volumes.  Mr. Motley has written without haste, with the leisurely composure of a master. . . .  We now take our leave of Mr. Motley, desiring him only to accept our hearty thanks for these volumes, which we trust will soon take their place in every English library.  Our quotations will have sufficed to show the ability of the writer.  Of the scope and general character of his work we have given but a languid conception.  The true merit of a great book must be learned from the book itself.  Our part has been rather to select varied specimens of style and power.  Of Mr. Motley’s antecedents we know nothing.  If he has previously appeared before the public, his reputation has not crossed the Atlantic.  It will not be so now.  We believe that we may promise him as warm a welcome among ourselves as he will receive even in America; that his place will be at once conceded to him among the first historians in our common language.”

The faithful and unwearied Mr. Allibone has swept the whole field of contemporary criticism, and shown how wide and universal was the welcome accorded to the hitherto unknown author.  An article headed “Prescott and Motley,” attributed to M. Guizot, which must have been translated, I suppose, from his own language, judging by its freedom from French idioms, is to be found in “The Edinburgh Review” for January, 1857.  The praise, not unmingled with criticisms, which that great historian bestowed upon Motley is less significant than the fact that he superintended a translation of the “Rise of the Dutch Republic,” and himself wrote the Introduction to it.