The other works of Froude are of inferior consequence. Neither his _Julius Cæsar_ nor his _Erasmus_ is calculated to increase his reputation; while the very interesting _Oceana_ indicates, more clearly than any of his other writings, the source of his greatest errors--a habit of jumping to conclusions from insufficient premisses. Froude pronounces confidently upon the colonies on no better ground than a hurried visit and a few conversations with chance residents, who might not always be disinterested. Yet _Oceana_ had more influence than many a better book. Like Seeley's _Expansion of England_ it was partly the consequence, but also partly the cause of the great change in public opinion whereby the colonies, regarded thirty years ago as little better than a burden, have come to be considered the principal support of the greatness of England. [Sidenote: Alexander William Kinglake (1809-1891).] The historian generally prefers to work upon a subject removed to some distance from his own time, but the intense interest of a great armed struggle not infrequently makes it an exception. Thus, the Peninsular War found a contemporary historian in Napier, and similarly Alexander William Kinglake wrote the story of the next great European contest in which England was engaged after the fall of Napoleon. He had previously won a purer literary fame in the fascinating volume of travel, _Eothen_, published in 1844. The journey of which it is a record had been made about nine years earlier, and _Eothen_ as finally published was the result of long thought and of fastidious care in literary workmanship. It is little concerned with facts and occurrences, attempting rather to reproduce the effect of the life and the scenes of the East. The reputation acquired by this book opened up for Kinglake the larger subject of the Crimean War. He had accompanied the expedition from love of adventure, and chance made him acquainted with Lord Raglan, whose papers were ultimately intrusted to him. _The Invasion of the Crimea_ (1863-1887) is open to several serious objections. It is far too long, and the style is florid, diffuse and highly mannered. Moreover, Kinglake is a most prejudiced historian. There is no mean in his judgment; he either can see no faults, or he can see nothing else. Raglan and St. Arnaud are examples of the two extremes. But frequently the historian supplies the corrective to his own judgment. If the battle of the Alma was won as Kinglake says it was, then it was won not by generalship but by hard fighting plus a lucky blunder on the part of the general. On the other hand, Kinglake sustains the interest with great skill, especially in the battle volumes. Long as are the accounts of the Alma and of Balaclava, they are perfectly clear, and the impression left is indelible. [Sidenote: Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-1862).]