« EdellinenJatka »
upon another ground of apprehension, which affected some people, that your Lordship's known principle was to be absolute; that you was to absorb all power; and others were to act only as your puppets. He solemnly declared however, that he spoke not this, as conveying any feeling of his own, for he had found your Lordship everything he could have wished, in the conduct of the Administration. Without making any answer to this, I contented myself with expressing surprise, that no compliment should have been paid to you by any communication whatever of any plan or particulars of what was to be done. He could only, he said, desire me to consider the extreme difficulty and delicacy of doing it, when the conduct of the whole was not to be entrusted to you. My reply was of course much the same as I had made upon a like occasion to Mr. Pitt.' (Orde to Shelburne, Dec. 18, 1783.)
Shelburne, whose faults were of the grand order, free from any sense of petty personal resentments, wrote at once to Sydney assuring him that the Government should have his support. After the general election had resulted in the total rout of the Opposition, the main obstacle to Shelburne's return to office had been removed; but instead of office he was offered a step in the peerage; and the acceptance of this offer seems to have been considered by Pitt as an acquittance of Shelburne's claims upon the Government.
Shelburne, when he became Marquis of Lansdowne, though in the vigour of his years and the maturity of his experience, ceased to play a prominent part in public life. He never again held office; but his principles, as his biographer justly remarks, were adopted by Pitt, and the measures founded on those principles have raised the fame of Pitt far above the average level of successful parliamentary statesmen. Lord Lansdowne continued his support to the Ministry for the next three years, though he seldom attended Parliament. But in 1786, acting consistently on his principle of measures, not men,' Lord Lansdowne went down to the House of Lords, and opposed the India Bill with so much power that extraordinary efforts were made to assure its safety. A still more important difference took place a few years later. Pitt, departing from the policy of his father, considered the balance of power to be seriously endangered by the avowed intention of Russia to seize upon Constantinople, and resolved to resist it. Fox made one of his finest and most finished speeches against the Russian armament, as it was called, and Lord Lansdowne took the leading part in the Upper House in opposition to the scheme. For the first time since Pitt came into power Parliament hesitated in its implicit obedience to his will. The majorities fell off, a change of Ministry was even talked about, and Pitt was forced to abandon the enterprise which he had so rashly undertaken. Warned by this failure, the Minister, whose strength lay in domestic administration, flattered himself that he might withdraw from the thorny paths of foreign politics and close the map of Europe. Yet at this very time, the French Revolution had begun, and England was on the eve of a war, the longest and the most hazardous of any war in which she had ever been engaged. The Crown and the Government seemed to require a firmer support than Mr. Pitt, aided only by a Cabinet of nominees, could afford. A negotiation set on foot by Lord Loughborough to bring back Fox and his friends came to nothing. The King on his own part made an overture to Lord Lansdowne, who replied by a long and confused paper on men and measures, from which a clearer intellect than that of George III. might have failed to extract the meaning. This attempt was, therefore, likewise a failure; and Mr. Pitt remained, strengthened by the abortive efforts to discredit and displace him. From this time his policy assumed a more decided tone. He offered an uncompromising opposition to the democratic doctrines imported from France, and sought to put them down by force of law.
This policy produced an immediate effect upon the Opposition. Fox had vehemently committed himself to the extreme doctrines of the French Revolution. Burke had denounced them with all the resources of his rich and copious eloquence. One section of the Whigs, following the lead of Burke, formally gave in their adhesion to the Government; some of them taking office, and being thenceforth absorbed into the Tory party, which then resumed its distinctive form and organisation. Opposition, which amidst the terrors and distractions of the times, still firmly adhered to their ancient principles, was almost annihilated. They could barely muster twenty votes in the Commons, and half a dozen in the Lords. Fox in the one House, and Lord Lansdowne in the other, were the leaders of this forlorn hope of freedom. Political adversity thus brought together the two public men who had hitherto been most consistent in their mutual hostility. The reconciliation of Lansdowne and Fox, if not personally cordial, was frank and lasting. When the King's illness, in 1801, seemed likely to end in a regency, Lord Moira was instructed by the Prince of Wales to consult Lord Lansdowne on the arrangements to be made in that event, and a Cabinet, including Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Fox as Secretaries of State, was agreed upon. But the King recovered, the Peace of Amiens was broken, and Mr. Pitt, who had temporarily withdrawn, resumed his post at the head of affairs. Fox admitted that the Opposition was now hopeless. Lord
Lansdowne's career was drawing to its close. The last speech he made in Parliament was a protest against the renewal of the war. The short remainder of his life was passed at Bowood, where he died on May 7, 1805.
• If life and health had been continued to him a little longer,' says Lord Edmond, he would probably have been a member of the Coalition Ministry formed in 1806 by Lord Grenville and Fox, or perhaps he would have been satisfied with seeing Lord Henry Petty filling the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer at the age of twenty-six. His remains were interred in the church of High Wycombe, in the county which has given five Premiers to Great Britain. No tasteless monument nor fulsome inscription disfigures his grave, but if any epitaph were needed to mark where he rests, it might be found in the words attributed to Bentham, that alone of his own time, the first Lord Lans
a Minister who did not fear the people.”' For a fuller account of this eminent person, and of the public transactions in which he bore a prominent part, we must refer our readers to the well-written volumes before us. History has not done justice to the character of the first Marquis of Lansdowne, who only wanted the opportunity to have taken his place in the first rank of English statesmen. During his short Administration he concluded a disastrous war by a peace in which the interests and the honour of the country were duly regarded, and the domestic policy which he pursued was only in fault inasmuch as it was in advance of the knowledge and morality of the time. His personal failings were certainly not those of casuistry and duplicity which are popularly attributed to him. He rather erred from a stubborn faith in the virtue of principle, and a contemptuous neglect of those party connexions without which, even in this improved age, it is difficult to carry any measure bearing the stamp of novelty or progress. But in truth Lord Shelburne was even more of a political philosopher than a statesman, and his political philosophy was far above the level of his own age. He was an ardent champion of American independence. He hailed with enthusiasm the French Revolution. He had always firmly maintained that France ought not to be the enemy, but the friend and ally, of England. He was the strenuous advocate of free trade. He was for Catholic Emancipation and complete religious equality before the law. He would have proposed a Reform Bill and the disfranchisement of nomination boroughs. He was in favour of the rights of the neutral flag in time of war. He did institute a close search into the gross abuses that pervaded every branch of the Administration. His house became, what it continued to be for two generations, a centre of cultivated and liberal
society, for Priestley, Price, Morellet, Dumont, Romilly, Bentham, were among his most constant associates. On all these points Lord Shelburne was fifty years ahead of his own times; and whatever place may be assigned him in the ranks of party, he was undoubtedly one of the most genuine Liberals who has ever played a part in the affairs of England. If his public life was on the whole a failure, it was throughout consistent in its adherence to these Liberal principles ; it was neither stained by corruption nor disfigured by faction; and in one respect Lord Lansdowne was most fortunate; his declining years were cheered by the early promise of a son who ultimately inherited his honours and added lustre to his name.
ART. VIII.--). Discoveries at Ephesus. By J. T. WOOD,
F.S.A. London: 1877. 2. Beiträge zur Geschichte u. Topographie Kleinasiens. Von
E. CURTIUS. Berlin: 1872. 3. Ephesos. Von E. CURTIUS. Berlin : 1874. 4. Ephesos im ersten Christlichen Jahrhundert. Von G. A.
ZIMMERMANN. Leipzig: 1874. MORE than twenty-two centuries ago, in the year 356 before
the Christian era, two remarkable events are recorded to have taken place on the same night. The queen of Philip of Macedon gave birth to a son destined to be the conqueror of the East, and the Temple of the Ephesian Artemis was burnt by Herostratus. The Ephesian people were not long in repairing this great calamity, and the new temple which they erected far surpassed its predecessor in magnificence. It is this temple which, when St. Paul visited Ephesus, ranked among the Seven Wonders of the ancient world, and of which the site, long sought for by travellers, was found by Mr. Wood in 1873.
Before noticing the series of remarkable discoveries narrated in his book, it may be well to give some account of the earlier temples of the Ephesian Artemis, and of the city with which her world-famous worship was associated through so many centuries. The first event in the history of Ephesus which has any claim to be historical is the establishment there of a colony from Greece, under the leadership of Androklos, son of the Attic King Kodros. This event, which is said to have taken place B.c. 1044, is presented to us in that legendary garb in which the naked facts of Greek tradition were so constantly clothed before the beginning of regular history. Androklos, says the local legend as Pausanias gives it, landed with his band of adventurers at a particular spot on the Ionian coast, to which they were directed by an oracle. Here, some fishermen having lit a fire to broil some fish near a fountain, startled a boar out of the brushwood, which was chased over the rocky ground near the shore, and killed by Androklos. This incident is commemorated on the coins of Ephesus, as late as the second century of our era, on which Androklos, with the title of Ktistes, 'Founder,' is represented slaying the boar. In the time of the Antonines, the tomb of this hero was still to be seen at Ephesus, on the road leading from the Magnesian Gate to the Temple of Artemis.
Notwithstanding the legendary character of this story, there seems to be no just ground for rejecting the main fact which it embodies, that a band of settlers from Attica established themselves at Ephesus, somewhere about the middle of the eleventh century B.C., when the Ionic immigration took place along the west coast of Asia Minor. But even at this very remote period, if we are to believe Pausanias, the worship of Artemis had been established at Ephesus from time immemorial, and this tradition is mixed up with the story of that mysterious product of Asiatic myth, the Amazons, who are said to have been the first attendants of the goddess, and whose reputed descendants in after times dwelt round her temple, blended with a population of Lydians and Leleges. These aboriginal races Androklos gradually drove before him, so as to secure for his colony a strong mountainous position called Coressus, and the cominand of a harbour communicating with the sea through the channel of the Cayster. Then, by an arrangement very common in the early Greek colonies, there grew up side by side two communities, one composed of natives, who dwelt round the Temple of Artemis, the other of Greek new comers; and at Ephesus, as at Halicarnassus and elsewhere on the Ionian coast, a friendly understanding was after a time established between these two populations.
On reference to Mr. Wood's map we can easily recognise the site which must have been occupied by Androklos. It must have extended over the mountain formerly called Peion or Prion, but which Mr. Wood, for reasons which we shall have to explain, calls Coressus. The sacred harbour and the fountain Hypelaos, both of which figure in the legend of Androklos, must have been somewhere on the lower ground, at the foot of the mountain ridge which bounds Ephesus to the south, and which is called Prion by Mr. Wood. The native population