| + + + | Cath. World. 84: 829. Mr. ’07. 980w. (Review of v. 1–5.) |
“Mr. Paul’s work, is, in brief, a readable journalistic enterprise, sufficiently accurate in details, but lacking in study, in erudition, and in thought, and largely deficient in all save avowed political information.”
| + − | Dial. 42: 114. F. 16, ’07. 290w. (Review of v. 5.) |
“Surely Mr. Paul’s wisdom and foresight must have fallen short when he accords such a high place to the man [Mr. Balfour] whom both Conservatives and Liberals now realize to be a failure as the leader of a modern political party and whose successor is being discussed in his own political camp. ‘The history of modern England’ will certainly not hold its own either as history or as literature.”
| − + | Ind. 63: 454. Ag. 22, ’07. 570w. (Review of v. 1–5.) |
“Giving always a picturesque and interesting narrative of contemporary events, not always, it is true, without prejudice and bias, but possessing all the virtues of an honest account by an intelligent participant.”
| + + | Ind. 63: 1232. N. 21, ’07. 70w. (Review of v. 1–5.) | |
| + + | Nation. 84: 177. F. 21, ’07. 2240w. (Review of v. 5.) |
“No one can question the breeziness and vigor of his style or the cleverness of his epigrams; but however successful the work may be as literature, as history it leaves much to be desired.” W. Roy Smith.
| + − | Pol. Sci. Q. 22: 129. Mr. ’07. 610w. (Review of v. 4 and 5.) |
“The present volume is distinctly inferior to its predecessors, both in arrangement and form, and in the objectivity of its criticisms.” George Louis Beer.