brilliant parts; and in civil affairs, it is possible, if not certain,
that a great part may be reserved for Cavaignac.

WILLIAM PENN AND MACAULAY.

We find in the London _Times_ a reviewal of Mr. Forster's "Observations
on the Charges made in Mr. Macaulay's History of England against the
Character of William Penn," and transfer it to these pages, as likely to
be not less interesting to Americans than to Englishmen, since Penn's
name is most intimately connected with the history of this country. The
book reviewed has been republished in New-York by Mr. John Wiley.

"Mr. Macaulay will not be likely to take offence at a comparison of his
history with Burnet's, and certainly in one particular point the two
productions have been attended with remarkably similar effects. The
number of historical writers and pamphleteers who were called into being
by the honest Bishop's account of his own times was astonishing. Every
chapter in his narrative created a literary antagonist, and the spirit
thus called into being was really instrumental, to a very considerable
extent, in changing the whole style and tone of English history. It is
too early to predict a precisely similar issue of Mr. Macaulay's labors;
but things are certainly tending that way. There have been more
discussions upon points of English history within the last twelve months
than have usually occurred in as many years. The social and political
condition of our ancestors, the motives of great acts, the characters of
great men, and the general course of our national life for the last
century and a half, have of late been perpetually brought before the
public, and seldom without instructive results. It is not, of course,
every joust which yields a respectable show, but Mr. Macaulay's shield
has been once or twice struck by antagonists who have shown a title to
the encounter, and one of these is now in the lists with the pamphlet
specified below.

"Mr. Forster's challenge is on behalf of the personal character and
political conduct of the famous William Penn--"the arch-Quaker," whom he
conceives Mr. Macaulay to have treated with an injustice which, if it
did not result from deliberate prejudice, was at all events chargeable
to unbecoming negligence of inquiry. The cause thus asserted he defends
in fifty pages of not unreasonable argument, and supports by the liberal
quotation of accepted authorities. Unfortunately, the character of the
controversy is such that