first volume of this work is an attempt to relate the history of the unhappy period during which these laws were made.

Soon after the accession of George IV. to the throne a new period of English history commenced. Mackintosh, following up the labours of Romilly, reformed the Criminal Code; Huskisson, adopting the doctrines of Adam Smith, reformed the commercial system; Canning, rejecting the principles of Castlereagh, reformed the policy of the Foreign Office; a Tory Government, abandoning the traditions of its party, emancipated the Roman Catholics and the Dissenters; and a Whig Ministry, at length succeeding to power, reformed the constitution of the House of Commons. These five great revolutions in law, in commerce, in foreign policy, in religion, and in internal politics were the memorable achievements of twelve years of progress. An attempt has been made to relate the history of these twelve years in the second volume of this work. It is proposed, in future volumes, to deal with the labours and doings of a Reformed Parliament.

It may possibly be objected to the plan of this work that the events of which it treats are too recent to be dealt with judicially. The same objection could, however, have been raised to some of the greatest histories which the world has yet seen. The Author relies for replying to it on the avowed intention of one great authority. Macaulay, when he commenced his immortal history, contemplated as a final halting-place the Reform Bill of 1832. If it were legitimate in 1848 to contemplate writing the history of 1832, it must be legitimate in 1878 to contemplate writing the history of 1862.

Objection may perhaps be also taken to the Author's method. It may be thought that one or two occurrences have been omitted from these volumes which ought to have been included in them. History may, undoubtedly, be written in two ways. The historian may, on the one hand, relate every event in the history of a nation in strict chronological order. He may, on the other hand, endeavour to deal with each subject in a separate episode. A good deal may probably be advanced in support of either of these methods. But, on the whole, the second of them seems preferable to the first. The Author, who deliberately adopts it, has, at any rate, the satisfaction of knowing that he has rejected the easier and adopted the more laborious method, and that his choice has not, therefore, been dictated by any consideration for his own convenience. In this work an endeavour will be made to deal with each subject separately; and, with this object, various matters, which had their origin before 1832, have been passed over for the present in silence, and reserved for future treatment in subsequent volumes.

LONDON: August 1878.