was essentially mathematical. Schiaparelli has made some admirable remarks in this very connexion. Speaking of Martian geminations,' he says:

'The geometry of nature is manifested in many other facts, which entirely exclude the idea of artificial labour. The perfect spheroids of the heavenly bodies and the ring of Saturn were not constructed in a turning-lathe, and not with compasses has Iris described in the clouds her beautiful and regular arch. And what shall we say of the infinite variety of those exquisite and regular polyhedrons in which the world of crystals is so rich! In the organic world also, what wonderful geometry presides over the distribution of foliage on certain plants, orders the nearly symmetrical star-like forms of flowers and marine animals, and produces in the shell a perfect conical spiral excelling the finest masterpieces of Gothic architecture! In all these objects the geometrical figure is the simple and necessary consequence of the principles and laws which govern the physical and physiological world. That such principles and laws are but an indication of a higher intelligent Power we may admit; the admission has, however, nothing to do with the present argument."

There is, then, no compulsion upon us to regard the surface of Mars as modelled to suit their vital needs by the industry of rational creatures. Irrigation hypotheses, inland navigation hypotheses, and the like, are superfluous, and, being superfluous, are inadmissible. Not that they are, in all shapes, demonstrably false, but that they open the door to pure license in theorising. The admission of vegetable growth and decay as an element of visible change is less objectionable, and is apparently capable of being justified spectroscopically; but, until that or some other kind of definite evidence is forthcoming, the subject invites only nebulous conjecture. In any case, Martian seas cannot be abolished, their presence being indispensable to the systematic and rapid circulation of water, which is the most obviously executed process of the planet's internal economy.

We venture to disclaim, on behalf of humanity, the extramundane jealousy imputed to it by Mr. Lowell. At the close of this nineteenth century, after so many poignant disillusions, amid the wreck of so many passionate hopes, it is not enamoured with its own destinies to the point of desiring to impose them as a maximum of happiness upon the universe. Rather, men cherish the vision of other and better worlds, where intelligence, untrammelled by moral disabilities, may have risen to unimaginable heights, and sense and reason alike are dominated by incorrupt will. But it is improbable that the vision can ever be located in any one of

The problem of universal That inorganic nature designed and appointed

the disseminated orbs around us. life is an enticing, yet insoluble one. has, everywhere and always, for its final cause the production of organic life may be true, but can scarcely be assumed as a matter of course; while, on the other hand, the thought that millions of globes roll through space tenantless for all time revolts our sense of the rational in creation. Science can only declare that a given planet appears, so far as physical investigations can tell, to be habitable; nihil obstat is its last word on the subject. The word 'habitable' has, however, a very wide implication. The hierarchy of life has endless gradations. The roof ' and crown of things' in some remote worlds may be a race as far below the genus homo as it is above it in others. Could the veil be lifted, incomprehensible diversity would, without doubt, be found to prevail here as elsewhere in the works of Infinite Wisdom. For one star differeth from ' another star in glory.'

ART. VI.-The Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue, Esq., preserved at Dropmore. Vol. II. Historical Manuscripts Commission. 14th Report. Appendix, Part V.

THE

'HE second volume of the manuscripts at Dropmore, which has recently been published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, is undoubtedly of greater importance than that which preceded it four years ago, though that collection contained much noteworthy and interesting material.* The new volume consists of papers which extend over a comparatively short period-namely, the years 1791 to 1794; but they are years of supreme importance in the history of Europe and of Great Britain, and the collection before us adds largely to the accessible records of the time. It supplements other publications of the period, and it is equal in importance to any collection of correspondence which has hitherto been published. Inasmuch as the letters are written to or by Lord Grenville, he is the central figure of the work; and they have this special interest attached to them, that they are of the most varied kind, since as foreign secretary Grenville was receiving official and private letters from every Court in Europe. He was careful in the preservation of his correspondence, which at this late period is at length in course of publication. The letters form in a mixed shape a consecutive history of the political events on the Continent, and they depict by means of various letters and despatches the foreign policy of the country for these years under the administration of Pitt and Grenville. Broadly speaking, we first watch the course of purely central European politics, when the attention of English statesmen was fixed on the designs of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Gradually the scene shifts from the Danube to the Seine, as the terrible drama of the French Revolution unfolds itself. English ministers have then to throw aside a severe neutrality in regard to the affairs of the Continent, and are forced into a coalition with the German Powers against the aggressiveness of the French nation, and the Eastern question for many years gives way to a new and more urgent crisis in the West. The gradual change which came over the minds of English statesmen will be made more obvious to anyone who will read through these numerous despatches; they depict better than can the pen of the historian the tendency of official opinion and the

*Edinburgh Review, vol. clxxvii. p. 145.

difficulties which beset English statesmen in their dealings with the European Powers. There are necessarily in them many details and allusions which are not only without permanent value, but have also lost all interest to a modern reader; still the chain of important despatches, of noteworthy incidents and the illustrations of decisive circumstances are so remarkable, that those who will steadily keep in view the general course of cardinal events will feel that this volume brings them into very close relations with the men and facts of that epoch.

The correspondence begins in January 1791. It is necessary, therefore, to bear in mind a few salient events if it is to be properly understood.

By the death of the Emperor Joseph II., on February 20, 1790, the war between Austria and Turkey came virtually to an end. For the new Emperor was a man of pacific views, a diplomatist rather than a soldier. The result of the change of personal rule was therefore a change of policy on the part of Austria, which culminated in the signing of an armistice at Reichenbach in August 1790, and in the peace of Sistova on August 4, 1791, on the basis of the status quo ante. But during the same period war was still being fiercely waged between Russia and Turkey, and on December 22 Suwarrow captured the fortress and town of Ismailow after an incredible slaughter. In spite, however, of the heavy blow to the Turkish arms, it was not until August 11, 1791, that peace was restored between these immemorial foes by the signature of the Treaty of Galatz. Before the latter event occurred the policy of the English administration was to induce the Empress Catherine to conclude a peace with the Porte on the same basis as Austria had done. Any territorial aggrandisement of Russia was regarded as a menace to the future peace of Europe, and as tending to the ultimate extinction of the Turkish Empire, and therefore to a change in the balance of power. The Empress Catherine, on the other hand, was determined-and in this she succeeded-that she would retain Oczakow and the district between the Dniester and the Bug: this fortress and piece of territory she had made up her mind not to relinquish. Their importance became unduly exaggerated in the minds of the British Cabinet, and Pitt, who after this particular moment regarded the neutrality of England in continental affairs as a vital part of his general policy, in regard to Russia favoured an actual intervention, and made preparations for a possible war. The Russian armament, as it was called at the time, became

the subject of Parliamentary discussion and of national apprehension, well founded when it is borne in mind that it was only after an ultimatum had been officially communicated on March 27 by the Duke of Leeds, then foreign secretary to the British minister at St. Petersburg, that it was countermanded by the hasty despatch of a messenger when Pitt had come to the conclusion that his policy, if carried to the extent of a war, would not be supported by the country. The consequence of this change of policy was the resignation of the Duke of Leeds, who, on April 21, was succeeded by Lord Grenville, who thenceforward held the office of foreign secretary until the resignation of Pitt in 1801. But this simple outline was necessarily involved at the time in a mass of complicated facts, and principles of policy were intermingled with numerous personal considerations and ambitions and foibles, which at the present day have lost their interest, while it is difficult to estimate their actual weight when a century has passed away.

The first letter of importance on the subject of the relations of Great Britain and Russia is one from Lord Auckland, at that time our minister at the Hague. His influence with both Pitt and Grenville was great; their reliance on his judgement was not misplaced. He was a statesman of thoroughly sound and clear understanding; he was never led astray by personal ambition or motives. His view of affairs was almost judicial; and he formed his judgements with a good-humoured serenity which made him a safe adviser.

It is unquestionable that the present publication will enhance Auckland's reputation for sagacity, and emphasise the undoubted and considerable influence which he exercised on the actual Ministry. He exemplifies the fact that a man need not necessarily be a member of a Cabinet in order to influence the policy of the body which is publicly responsible for the welfare of the State. One cause of the soundness of Auckland's opinions was that he kept in view the state of affairs at home. It is perfectly natural that English diplomatists at a foreign Court should be apt to give too little weight to the factors at home, even if they are able to measure their influence at all, and it is equally certain that what foreign statesmen have regarded as want of good faith on the part of English politicians has often been no more than a carrying out of the wishes of the nation as expressed by the voice of public opinion. Writing in one letter of the English minister and his colleague at Berlin after the great