ry
showed to a friend a pile of books which he had gone through, merely to
satisfy himself and the world as to what description of trousers was
worn by the Saxons. His death was calm as his life. 'Come out to me
directly,' he wrote to his friend, Sir Harry Moncrieff: 'I have got
something to do this week; I have got to die.'
It was in 1801, that Dugald Stewart began his course of lectures on
political economy. Hitherto all public favour had been on the side of
the Tories, and independence of thought was a sure way to incur
discouragement from the Bench, in the Church, and from every Government
functionary. Lectures on political economy were regarded as innovations;
but they formed a forerunner of that event which had made several
important changes in our literary and political hemisphere: the
commencement of the 'Edinburgh Review.' This undertaking was the work of
men who were separated from the mass of their brother-townsmen by their
politics; their isolation as a class binding them the more closely
together by links never broken, in a brotherhood of hope and ambition,
to which the natural spirits of Sydney Smith, of Cockburn, and of
Jeffrey, gave an irresistible charm.
Among those who the most early in life ended a career of promise was
Francis Horner. He was the son of a linen-draper in Edinburgh; or, as
the Scotch call it, following the French, a merchant. Homer's best linen
for sheets, and table-cloths, and all the _under garments_ of
housekeeping, are still highly esteemed by the trade.
'My desire to know Horner,' Sydney Smith states, 'arose from my being
cautioned against him by some excellent and feeble-minded people to whom
I brought letters of introduction, and who represented him as a person
of violent political opinions.' Sydney Smith interpreted this to mean
that Horner was a man who thought for himself; who loved truth better
than he loved Dundas (Lord Melville), then the tyrant of Scotland. 'It
is very curious to consider,' Sydney Smith wrote, in addressing Lady
Holland, in 1817, 'in what manner Horner gained, in so extraordinary a
degree, the affections of such a number of persons of both sexes, all
ages, parties, and ranks in society; for he was not remarkably good
tempered, nor particularly lively and agreeable; and an inflexible
politician on the unpopular side. The causes are, his high character for
probity, honour, and talents; his fine countenance; the benevolent
interest he took in the conce
|