Reviews of Books
English Historical Review
them as referring to the selection of Dalrymple and Burrard for the command. Whatever interpretation be put on them, they are words which Moore's admirers must regret. But not only does Moore himself make no mention of them in his diary, they are not alluded to by Gastlereagh in the official letter which Stapleton speaks of, and which Moore thought was written ' with a view to irritate me, in the hope that I would answer it intemperately and give them an excuse to recall me from this service.'
... rom this service.' That letter dwells only on Moore's complaint of ' unhandsome and unworthy treatment,' though if the ministers wanted to get rid of Mm nothing could have been more to the point than such a forecast of failure. On the whole we seem justified in dismissing this story. It comes to us at third hand with palpable blunders; it is improbable and uncorroborated; and the foundation of fact for it cannot now be determined. One could wish that General Maurice had printed fuller extracts from the correspondence placed at his disposal, letters from Castlereagh, Lord W. Bentinok, and others, with copies of Moore's replies, which' ought to be before any historian who pretends to judge of the campaign.' What he has given us in these two volumes is so acceptable that we have perhaps no right to complain that he has not given us something more'; but at any rate every one will agree with him that ' the whole body of them ought to be published together in a readable form as very valuable historical documents.' There are two or three mistakes worth noting. Lord Camden, the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, was not Oastlereagh's grandfather (ii. 284), but the unole of his half-brother. General Mackenzie Fraser is made into two generals (ii. 120, 204) and one of the two is mixed up in the index with Colonel Kenneth Mackenzie. The name of General Kcehler is printed Eoohler, and ' I' should apparently be ' and' in the ninth line of voL ii. p. 42. E. M. LLOYD.