Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/481

1921 SHORT NOTICES 473 Minorca, ought not to be a shadowy figure in our naval annals. Yet that is the fate which has long obscured the fame of Rear-Admiral Sir John Leake. The reasons for the comparative oblivion which has been his lot are set forth by Mr. Callender in a long introduction to these two volumes of the rare and little-known work of Stephen Martin-Leake, F.R.S., F.S.A., Garter King of Arms, which describes the exploits of the admiral. Undoubt- edly, they have been slurred over by Stanhope and other writers, whose attention has been concentrated on Peterborough. A perusal of these volumes will not enhance the reputation of that brilliant but eccentric leader, whose vanity and egotism they bring into strong relief. Mr. Callender, in his lively and rather flamboyant introduction (in which the parable of the nurse and the baby on p. cxxv affords a singular interlude), vigorously takes up the cudgels for Leake and against Peterborough ; but it is impossible here to enter into the complicated controversies which fill Colonel Parnell's War of the Succession in Spain and the works of Colonel Russell and Mr. Stebbing. The present volumes show that the credit of relieving Barcelona certainly belongs to Leake, though Peter- borough, who had forbidden Leake to proceed thither, finally reaped the sole honour of that important exploit. Mr. Callender comments crisply on the need of a good naval base in the Mediterranean, and the importance of Leake's capture of Minorca in 1708. The fifth Earl Stanhope in his account of the war ignores Leake and minimizes the influence of sea power ; yet in few struggles was its effect more important ; and Leake, as we now see, was not merely a good fighter (witness his handling of H.M.S. Eagle in closing the gap ahead of Russell's flagship at Barfleur), but also possessed the gift of foresight as to the importance of good naval bases. It is unfortu- nate that Martin-Leake gives so short an account (ii. 165) of Marlborough's ' good design against Toulon ' in 1706-7. A note was needed here to call attention to one of the best designs of that or any age for joint operations of navy and army against a fortress. It failed only owing to the lack of adequate and timely support from the duke of Savoy. On the other hand, Mr. Callender supplies good notes on the battle of Barfleur, and also (ii. 399) corrects Burchett's very incorrect estimates of British and French losses in warships in 1702-13. J. H. Re. A number t>f studies on various aspects of the French Revolution by the late M. Augustin Cochin, who was killed during the recent war, have been collected and published as Les Societes de Pensee el la Democratic (Paris : Plon, 1921 ). One of these essays, which had, we believe, already appeared in print, is avowedly a defence of Taine as an historian, but even had ' La Crise de l'Histoire Revolutionnaire ' been omitted by M. Cochin's literary executors, it would have been obvious to every reader of the book that the author was a disciple of Taine. He does not, it is true, emphasize the dark side of the Revolution so much as its weak side : he does not harrow us with tales of atrocities, such as made Scherer christen Les Origines de la France Contemporaine ' a chamber of horrors '. But he lays much stress on the unpractical political creeds held by many of the inspirers of the French Revolution, on the curious mysticism which deified the ' God-people '^ and on such practical defects as the working