hardly expect a warm welcome from the great dealers in literature as merchandise.  Mr. Murray civilly declined the manuscript which was offered to him, and it was published at its author’s expense by Mr. John Chapman.  The time came when the positions of the first-named celebrated publisher and the unknown writer were reversed.  Mr. Murray wrote to Mr. Motley asking to be allowed to publish his second great work, the “History of the United Netherlands,” expressing at the same time his regret at what he candidly called his mistake in the first instance, and thus they were at length brought into business connection as well as the most agreeable and friendly relations.  An American edition was published by the Harpers at the same time as the London one.

If the new work of the unknown author found it difficult to obtain a publisher, it was no sooner given to the public than it found an approving, an admiring, an enthusiastic world of readers, and a noble welcome at the colder hands of the critics.

“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.