ll　of　the　rich　rendered　them　victorious；　they　took　measures　equally　violent；　disarmed　all　in　whom　they　could　not　confide；　often　slaughtered　great　numbers；　and　occasionally　expelled　the　whole　commonalty　from　the　city；　and　remained；　with　their　slaves；　the　sole　inhabitants。
  From　such　calamities　Athens　and　Lacedaemon　alone　were　almost　completely　free。　　At　Athens　the　purses　of　the　rich　were　laid　under　regular　contribution　for　the　support　of　the　poor；　and　this；　rightly　considered；　was　as　much　a　favour　to　the　givers　as　to　the　receivers；　since　no　other　measure　could　possibly　have　saved　their　houses　from　pillage　and　their　persons　from　violence。　　It　is　singular　that　Mr　Mitford　should　perpetually　reprobate　a　policy　which　was　the　best　that　could　be　pursued　in　such　a　state　of　things；　and　which　alone　saved　Athens　from　the　frightful　outrages　which　were　perpetrated　at　Corcyra。
  Lacedaemon；　cursed　with　a　system　of　slavery　more　odious　than　has　ever　existed　in　any　other　country；　avoided　this　evil　by　almost　totally　annihilating　private　property。　　Lycurgus　began　by　an　agrarian　law。　　He　abolished　all　professions　except　that　of　arms；　he　made　the　whole　of　his　community　a　standing　army；　every　member　of　which　had　a　common　right　to　the　services　of　a　crowd　of　miserable　bondmen；　he　secured　the　state　from　sedition　at　the　expense　of　the　Helots。　　Of　all　the　parts　of　his　system　this　is　the　most　creditable　to　his　head；　and　the　most　disgraceful　to　his　heart。
  These　considerations；　and　many　others　of　equal　importance；　Mr　Mitford　has　neglected；　but　he　has　yet　a　heavier　charge　to　answer。　He　has　made　not　only　illogical　inferences；　but　false　statements。　While　he　never　states；　without　qualifications　and　objections；　the　charges　which　the　earliest　and　best　historians　have　brought　against　his　favourite　tyrants；　Pisistratus；　Hippias；　and　Gelon；　he　transcribes；　without　any　hesitation；　the　grossest　abuse　of　the　least　authoritative　writers　against　every　democracy　and　every　demagogue。　　Such　an　accusation　should　not　be　made　without　being　supported；　and　I　will　therefore　select　one　out　of　many　passages　which　will　fully　substantiate　the　charge；　and　convict　Mr　Mitford　of　wilful　misrepresentation；　or　of　negligence　scarcely　less　culpable。　　Mr　Mitford　is　speaking　of　one　of　the　greatest　men　that　ever　lived；　Demosthenes；　and　comparing　him　with　his　rival；　Aeschines。　　Let　him　speak　for　himself。
  〃In　earliest　youth　Demosthenes　earned　an　opprobrious　nickname　by　the　effeminacy　of　his　dress　and　manner。〃　　Does　Mr　Mitford　know　that　Demosthenes　denied　this　charge；　and　explained　the　nickname　in　a　perfectly　different　manner？　　（See　the　speech　of　Aeschines　against　Timarchus。）　　And；　if　he　knew　it；　should　he　not　have　stated　it？　　He　proceeds　thus：　　〃On　emerging　from　minority；　by　the　Athenian　law；　at　five…and…twenty；　he　earned　another　opprobrious　nickname　by　a　prosecution　of　his　guardians；　which　was　considered　as　a　dishonourable　attempt　to　extort　money　from　them。〃　　In　the　first　place　Demosthenes　was　not　five…and…twenty　years　of　age。　　Mr　Mitford　might　have　learned；　from　so　common　a　book　as　the　Archaeologia　of　Archbishop　Potter；　that　at　twenty　Athenian　citizens　were　freed　from　the　control　of　their　guardians；　and　began　to　manage　their　own　property。　　The　very　speech　of　Demosthenes　against　his　guardians　proves　most　satisfactorily　that　he　was　under　twenty。　　In　his　speech　against　Midias；　he　says　that　when　he　undertook　that　prosecution　he　was　quite　a　boy。　（Meirakullion　on　komide。）　　His　youth　might；　therefore；　excuse　the　step；　even　if　it　had　been　considered；　as　Mr　Mitford　says；　a　dishonourable　attempt　to　extort　money。　　But　who　considered　it　as　such？　　Not　the　judges　who　condemned　the　guardians。　　The　Athenian　courts　of　justice　were　not　the　purest　in　the　world；　but　their　decisions　were　at　least　as　likely　to　be　just　as　the　abuse　of　a　deadly　enemy。　　Mr　Mitford　refers　for　confirmation　of　his　statement　to　Aeschines　and　Plutarch。　　Aeschines　by　no　means　bears　him　out；　and　Plutarch　directly　contradicts　him。　　〃Not　long　after；〃　says　Mr　Mitford；　〃he　took　blows　publicly　in　the　theater〃　（I　preserve　the　orthography；　if　it　can　be　so　called；　of　this　historian）　〃from　a　petulant　youth　of　rank；　named　Meidias。〃　　Here　are　two　disgraceful　mistakes。　　In　the　first　place；　it　was　long　after；　eight　years　at　the　very　least；　probably　much　more。　　In　the　next　place　the　petulant　youth；　of　whom　Mr　Mitford　speaks；　was　fifty　years　old。　　（Whoever　will　read　the　speech　of　Demosthenes　against　Midias　will　find　the　statements　in　the　text　confirmed；　and　will　have；　moreover；　the　pleasure　of　becoming　acquainted　with　one　of　the　finest　compositions　in　the　world。）　　Really　Mr　Mitford　has　less　reason　to　censure　the　carelessness　of　his　predecessors　than　to　reform　his　own。　　After　this　monstrous　inaccuracy；　with　regard　to　facts；　we　may　be　able　to　judge　what　degree　of　credit　ought　to　be　given　to　the　vague　abuse　of　such　a　writer。　　〃The　cowardice　of　Demosthenes　in　the　field　afterwards　became　notorious。〃　　Demosthenes　was　a　civil　character；　war　was　not　his　business。　　In　his　time　the　division　between　military　and　political　offices　was　beginning　to　be　strongly　marked；　yet　the　recollection　of　the　days　when　every　citizen　was　a　soldier　was　still　recent。　　In　such　states　of　society　a　certain　degree　of　disrepute　always　attaches　to　sedentary　men；　but　that　any　leader　of　the　Athenian　democracy　could　have　been；　as　Mr　Mitford　says　of　Demosthenes；　a　few　lines　before；　remarkable　for　〃an　extraordinary　deficiency　of　personal　courage；〃　is　absolutely　impossible。　　What　mercenary　warrior　of　the　time　exposed　his　life　to　greater　or　more　constant　perils？　　Was　there　a　single　soldier　at　Chaeronea　who　had　more　cause　to　tremble　for　his　safety　than　the　orator；　who；　in　case　of　defeat；　could　scarcely　hope　for　mercy　from　the　people　whom　he　had　misled　or　the　prince　whom　he　had　opposed？　　Were　not　the　ordinary　fluctuations　of　popular　feeling　enough　to　deter　any　coward　from　engaging　in　political　conflicts？　　Isocrates；　whom　Mr　Mitford　extols；　because　he　constantly　employed　all　the　flowers　of　his　school…boy　rhetoric　to　decorate　oligarchy　and　tyranny；　avoided　the　judicial　and　political　meetings　of　Athens　from　mere　timidity；　and　seems　to　have　hated　democracy　only　because　he　durst　not　look　a　popular　assembly　in　the　face。　　Demosthenes　was　a　man　of　a　feeble　constitution：　　his　nerves　were　weak；　but　his　spirit　was　high；　and　the　energy　and　enthusiasm　of　his　feelings　supported　him　through　life　and　in　death。
  So　much　for　Demosthenes。　　Now　for　the　orator　of　aristocracy。　　I　do　not　wish　to　abuse　Aeschines。　　He　may　have　been　an　honest　man。　He　was　certainly　a　great　man；　and　I　feel　a　reverence；　of　which　Mr　Mitford　seems　to　have　no　notion；　for　great　men　of　every　party。　But；　when　Mr　Mitford　says　that　the　private　character　of　Aeschines　was　without　stain；　does　he　remember　what　Aeschines　has　himself　confessed　in　his　speech　against　Timarchus？　　I　can　make　allowances；　as　well　as　Mr　Mitford；　for　persons　who　lived　under　a　different　system　of　laws　and　morals；　but　let　them　be　made　impartially。　　If　Demosthenes　is　to　be　attacked　on　account　of　some　childish　improprieties；　proved　only　by　the　assertion　of　an　antagonist；　what　shall　we　say　of　those　maturer　vices　which　that　antagonist　has　himself　acknowledged？　　〃Against　the　private　character　of　Aeschines；〃　says　Mr　Mitford；　〃Demosthenes　seems　not　to　have　had　an　insinuation　to　oppose。〃　　Has　Mr　Mitford　ever　read　the　speech　of　Demosthenes　on　the　Embassy？　　Or　can　he　have　forgotten；　what　was　never　forgotten　by　anyone　else　who　ever　read　it；　the　story　which　Demosthenes　relates　with　such　terrible　energy　of　language　concerning　the　drunken　brutality　of　his　rival？　　True　or　false；　here　is　something　more　than　an　insinuation；　and　nothing　can　vindicate　the　historian；　who　has　overlooked　it；　from　the　charge　of　negligence　or　of　partiality。　　But　Aeschines　denied　the　story。　　And　did　not　Demosthenes　also　deny　the　story　respecting　his　childish　nickname；　which　Mr　Mitford　has　nevertheless　told　without　any　qualification？　　But　the　judges；　or　some　part　of　them；　showed；　by　their　clamour；　their　disbelief　of　the　relation　of　Demosthenes。　　And　did　not　the　judges；　who　tried　the　cause　between　Demosthenes　and　his　guardians；　indicate；　in　a　much　clearer　manner；　their　approbation　of　the　prosecution？　　But　Demosthenes　was　a　demagogue；　and　is　to　be　slandered。　　Aeschines　was　an　aristocrat；　and　is　to　be　panegyrised。　　Is　this　a　history；　or　a　party…pamphlet？
  These　passages；　all　selected　from　a　single　page　of　Mr　Mitford's　work；　may　give　some　notion　to　those　readers；　who　have　not　the　means　of　comparing　his　statements　with　the　original　authorities；　of　his　extreme　partiality　and　carelessness。　　Indeed；　whenever　this　historian　mentions　Demosthenes；　he　violates　all　the　laws　of　candour　and　even　of　decency；　he　weighs　no　authorities；　he　makes　no　allowances；　he　forgets　the　best　authenticated　facts　in　the　history　of　the　times；　and　the　most　generally　recognised　principles　of　human　nature。　　The　opposition　of　the　great　orator　to　the　policy　of　Philip　he　represents　as　neither　more　nor　less　than　deliberate　villany。　　I　hold　almost　the　same　opinion　with　Mr　Mitford　respecting　the　character　and　the　views　of　that　great　and　accomplished　prince。　　But　am　I；　therefore；　to　pronounce　Demosthenes　profligate　and　insincere？　　Surely　not。　　Do　we　not　perpetually　see　m