MODERN HISTORY-ITS SPIRIT AND INCULCATION. Delivered to the Edinburgh Branch of the Scottish Educational Institute of Scotland, 1851. PERHAPS there is no subject, the utility of which is so readily conceded by all as that of history, and yet there is none which, as regards its highest aims, is more misapprehended, or, as to its mode of inculcation, is so ill defined. Were history even a faithful and lively picture of the past, it would not have reached its highest destinies, and it might still be justly classed with those pursuits which form the subject of occasional study, and are the discretionary concomitants of other branches of education. When history in its page exhibits the result of general laws, it is elevated to the position of a science. We do not refer here to those more obvious laws of moral retribution which, whether affecting individuals or nations, are visible in the page of history as well as in the experience of everyday life: these, as affecting nations, might be legitimately considered as the elements of a science-and the contemplation of these with their cycles, have long formed the most instructive lessons to rulers and to people. The simplicity and obviousness of these laws might seem to take from them the dignity of a science; for it is manifest to all, for instance, that public corruption only carries out the effect of individual more extensively, and that public industry is the parent of national, as individual industry of private wealth. But history attains its highest elevation when it traces the progress of that civilisation which is spreading slowly yet surely through the world; when it accounts for the differing destinies of various countries; when it discerns in embryo the greatness of states; when it can with confidence anticipate the future. This has been accomplished so far in our own day, for no subject has of late received brighter illustration than history-and this not merely in giving a clearly minute view of the past, but in evolving those general laws which seldom occupied the attention of the old historians. It is gratifying that the intelligent eye of modern historians should, in looking to the past, be able to trace the various. marches of civilisation, to fix its distinct eras, and to establish the general laws of that great epic which is not yet completed. Till of late it was impossible, in the confusion of events, in the aggrandisement of distinct nationality, to obtain a vantage-ground to gaze on the confusion of those contests which have terminated in the triumphs of humanity and freedom. The historian was too often the bigot, the flatterer, the national apologist, the sceptic ; his views exhibited the court of the baron or the king, frequently at best tended to confine the admiration of his readers to the deeds of his own countrymen, and approved but coldly those sacrifices which a worldly spirit could not sympathise with. The intelligence of modern times has, however, penetrated the obscurity of the dark ages, disentangled the ravelled thread of biassed narrative, and linked the windings of the stream of freedom. This stream has been traced from its fountainhead in a wild and barren region, at times hidden and lost among rugged inequalities, but at last, after receiving many tributaries, emerging from the barriers of mountains, and opening with a wider and more tranquil flow in the extended plain of civilisation. The modern school of history announces the establishment of fixed laws, and points with confidence to the development of principles. It contemplates the advent of a happier social and moral state; and this is not the contemplation of men who are dreamers in human perfectibility, but of those who regard this world in one sense as a world of woe. It takes as one great principle of its development the extension of Christianity; it points to this as one of the elements which give to modern ages that degree of perfection which the civilisation of the ancient never attained. In the establishment of these principles, it darts its penetrating glance into the society of the early ages of Europe, contemplates in the first aspirations of the church the struggles of mind against force; and, while detecting the lingering influences of the Greek and Roman civilisation at the dawn of the modern ages, recognises those new influences brought in by the idiosyncrasy of the northern nations. This combination is then regarded as the foundation of a new order of things, as that which is destined under Providence to evolve and extend over the world. In the views which support this theory, much discrimination is displayed, and history soars above the mere narrative. Thus, for instance, the sudden extension of monachism in the west of Europe is regarded as a refuge for free inquiry in oppressive times; the subjection of the northern tribes to feudalism to be the result of the necessity of a new order of things in a more extended domain where they were surrounded by enemies; the importance of women in society to be the consequence, not entirely of the reverence with which she was regarded by the northern nations, but of the high and difficult duties which she had to discharge when, in the frequent absence of her lord, she was entrusted with the command of his castle, as well perhaps, we might add, of that equality which the diffusion of Christianity establishes. Philosophical history supplies the reasons and consequences of events, both of which were often misapprehended by the actors in these events, as was the case with Froissart when he deplores the dying spirit of chivalry. More particularly, the principles of modern civilisation afford a subject of ingenious research, as we see them developed in several countries at the same time. We have, so to speak, a race of civilisation in France, Germany, Spain, and Britain; we have at the outset many kindred elements, and the causes of the earlier or later developments of these are very satisfactorily traced. One distinction is made in the comparison which was seldom noted by our older historians—the greater prevalence of the social and moral in some countries than in others. Thus, in some countries political or social institutions have a decided preeminence, while, in others, the moral influence, which may be regarded as the influence of mind, is not accompanied with an exactly corresponding political development. The proofs of this are evident in the case of Germany, which, during the time of Luther, had a mighty influence on Europe, though its political constitutions were inferior. to those of England; and in the case of France, which, though far behind Britain in political institutions, has on many memorable occasions stirred the mind of Europe, and given an impetus to its civilisation. Such views as these are not only in themselves satisfactory, but they are salutary in so far as they tend to impress the importance of moral improvement, and are remembrancers to us, while with self-satisfaction congratulating ourselves on our political constitutions, that there can be no perfect civilisation without a prevalent tone of morality and enlightenment in the mass of society. Ireland at present has political H forms, but it is destitute of that moral life which clothes the skeleton of a constitution. Scotland, a century ago, was not politically what it is now, but then its civilisation, as regards the moral influence, was high; its peasantry and artisans were intelligent; and the influence of its literature was felt throughout Europe. It were well that we should endeavour to preserve our vantage-ground, that our schools, which sent forth through the world active and intelligent pioneers of civilisation, should feel the first flow of the tide of improvement, be multiplied with the increase of population, and send into the crowded lane of the swelling city the vivifying stream of knowledge. While such are the general elevating and instructive aims of history, it may be regarded as bearing directly on our duties as citizens and subjects. The late views of history develop with great clearness a peculiar constitution of modern states which distinguishes them from those of antiquity, viz., the co-existence and struggle of different powers or orders in society. In the ancient world, we have the triumph and prevalence of monarchy in one state; of theocracy in another; of aristocracy in another; and in another, of the republican principle. From the earliest times in modern Europe we have the contention of all these orders, "All struggling to be victors, breast to breast, The history of this struggle, and its consequences, is peculiarly the glory of M. Guizot's labours. It would be out of place at present to enlarge on its consequences; it will be enough simply to note two of its greatest results— namely, the triumph of toleration, and the acknowledgment of the safety of gradual change. Had any of these single powers prevailed-powers which were argued by |