WHEN Mr. Murray first proposed to place in my hands the papers of the late Sir Hudson Lowe in order that I might undertake the present work, after some consideration I declined the task, chiefly on grounds of a professional nature. For the Law is a jealous mistress, and recognises no half-hearted, or divided allegiance. But the proposal was again pressed upon me in so flattering a manner, that I was induced to reconsider my decision. I reflected that the subject was one for the due treatment of which my profession in some degree qualified me, as the value of the work must mainly depend upon the mode in which evidence is handled, and conflicting state ments are discussed. The habit which a Lawyer acquires of sifting evidence, is one which he may usefully apply in the solution of historical questions, as well as in forensic disputes. But he must be on his guard, and remember that he betrays the office of an Historian if he assumes the tone of an Advocate. When I commenced the present volumes, I made as it were a covenant with myself, that I would, in the language of our courts, "well and truly try the question at issue between the parties, and a true verdict give according to the evidence." I was not asked to make out a case for Sir Hudson Lowe, nor, had I been asked to do so, would I have consented. I regarded the duty of examining the papers left by him as a solemn trust for the due and truthful discharge of which I was responsible to the public, and a still more searching tribunal, my own conscience. Amicus Socrates, amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas. The present narrative has been written amidst the claims of a laborious profession, during the periods which otherwise would have been given to relaxation. I do not say this to deprecate criticism, for it is undoubtedly true that no author ought voluntarily to undertake what he does not think he can fairly execute. I merely state the fact. As to the style and manner in which I have performed the task it is not for me to judge. That question will be decided by the public for themselves, and every writer must submit himself to their impartial opinion, from which there is no appeal. But I do claim for myself the right to be believed when I assert that the present volumes have been written with the most minute and scrupulous regard to truth. I had to deal with an enormous mass of papers, and selection and curtailment were inevitable; but I have not kept back one single fact or expression which, whether it told for the one side or the other, could by possibility throw light upon the great question at issue. And for this reason I have sometimes intro |