liar application to the inhabitants of the north. If it has any real foundation, it muft undoubtedly be imputed to the debafing effects of the old Scotish government, and to the long continuance of that poverty and dependence, from which the people, in our days, are but beginning to emerge. The national spirit of Scotchmen has been much taken notice of; infomuch that they are supposed to be all in a confederacy to commend and extol one another. We may remark, that, as candidates, either for fame or profit, in the London market, they are greatly the minority; and it is not furprifing, that in fuch a fituation they fhould feel a common bond of union, like that of strangers in a hoftile country.' Vol. III. p. 89-95. The hiftory of the English government under the house of Stuart, is a fubject of licensed and inexhaustible controversy. It is a fubject, indeed, that feems to be fet apart and confecrated as a field of political contention, in which every writer must choofe his fide, and engage his antagonist. Into this arena, however, we by no means propofe to venture ourfelves, and have no inclination, indeed, to detain our readers very long with an account of the combat which Mr Millar maintains in it. The greater part of his treatife upon this fubject may be confidered as a formal anfwer to Mr Hume's hiftory, or a fpecific antidote to the poison which he imagines it to contain. Though the differences that prevail upon this fubject will probably never be composed while the conftitution of this country exifts, it is not a little remarkable, that all parties are now agreed upon the principle by which they should be determined, and that the difpute relates only to the degree or extent of its application. Mr Hume admits, that Charles the First attempted many arbitrary things, and was guilty of great errors and imprudence; and only apologizes for him on the ground of his hereditary prejudices, the neceffity of his fituation, and the diftruft which was naturally infpired by the increafing boldness and exactions of his Parliament. Mr Millar, on the other hand, without abfolutely rejecting thefe apologies, acknowledges that the Parliament ultimately carried their precaution and their vengeance a little too far; that their patriotifm was tainted with fanaticifm; that their republicanifm was not feconded by the voice of the nation; and that it payed the way for the ufurpation and military defpotifm of the protector, There is undoubtedly a great deal of truth, and a great deal of partiality in the ftatements of both writers: neither of them fuppreffes or falfifies facts; but they both give them that difpofition and arrangement that is calculated to favour their party. Mr Hume certainly magnifies the tyranny and arbitrary conduct of Elizabeth, when he compares it to that of a Turkish Sultan, in order to extenuate the unpopular measures of her fucceffors; and Mr Millar certainly does not make a very fatisfactory answer to this reprefentation, when he proves the conftitution of England to be a limited monarchy, from the writings of Fortescue, in the days of Henry II. Upon this general point, however, we are fatisfied that Mr Millar is in the right, and that the government of England was always confidered as diftinct from the abfolute monarchies that exifted over the greater part of the Continent. On the other hand, though Mr Hume has certainly aggravated the abfurdities of the puritanical leaders of that age, and omitted no opportunity to hold up the fanaticifm of the Parliament itself to derifion, it can fcarcely be doubted that Mr Millar has afcribed to them a far more unmixed and liberal spirit of patriotism, than they really appear to have poffeffed. It would be a hard problem, indeed, to determine what proportion of their acts fhould be referred to their impatience of civil oppreffion, and what to their religious difcontents; but, that the latter had a very important fhare in their decifions, and was the main-spring of much of their zeal and activity, does not appear to admit of a doubt. Mr Millar is rather actimonious in defcribing the conduct, and delineating the character of Charles I. He does not fcruple to fay, that he deferved death upon every principle of justice; although he is inclined to think, that it was not expedient to take away his life, against the general voice and inclination of the community. He confiders his execution as a neceffary step towards the establishment of a republic; and takes fome pains to convince his readers, that a republic is the moft fuitable form of government, either for a very fmall or a very extenfive country. We fubjoin a part of this paffage, as a fpecimen of the coolness with which this author conducts his fpeculations on the most inflammatory questions in the whole science of politics. If, by a republic, is meant a government in which there is no king, or hereditary chief magiftrate, it should feem that this political fyftem is peculiarly adapted to the two extremes, of a very small and a very great nation. In a very small state, no other form of government can fubfift. Suppofe a territory, containing no more than 30,000 inhabitants, and thefe paying taxes, one with another, at the rate of thirty fhillings yearly; this would produce a public revenue, at the difpofal of the crown, amounting annually to 45,000l.; a fum totally infufficient for fupporting the dignity and authority of the crown, and for beftowing on the king an influence fuperior to that which might be poffeffed by casual combinations of a few of his richeft fabjects. Suppofe, on the other hand, a territory fo extenfive and populous as to contain thirty millions of inhabitants, paying taxes in the fame proportion; this, at the free difpofal of a king, would bestow upon him an annual revenue, fo enormous, as to create a degree of patronage and influence which no regulations could effectually reftrain, and would render every attempt to limit the powers of the crown in a great measure vain and infignificant. In fuch a ftate, therefore, it feems extremely difficult to maintain the natural rights of mankind, otherwife than by abolishing monarchy altogether. Thus, in a very fmall ftate, a democratical government is neceffary, because the king would have too little authority; in a very great one, because he would have too much. In a ftate of moderate fize, lying in a certain medium between the two extremes, it should feem that monarchy may be established with advantage, and that the crown may be expected to poffefs a fufficient fhare of authority for its own prefervation, without endangering the people from the encroachments of prerogative. How far England was in thefe circumftances at the period in queftion, I fhall not pretend to determine. Vol. III. p. 326-328. There is nothing, we conceive, that fhows more confpicuously the unreasonablenefs of that paffion and partiality with which men are ftill difpofed to canvafs the tranfactions of this memorable period, than the unanimity which feems to prevail as to the merits of the Revolution in 1688. It is utterly impoffible, however, to conceive, that thofe who approve of the counfels of Strafford, or lament the failure of the Royal arms in the fubfequent conteft, fhould be fatisfied with the conftitution that was then eftablished, or feel any great veneration for that bill of rights which declared fo many of the measures which they had attempted to justify, to be oppreffive and illegal. On the other hand, it is not eafy to reconcile the opinions of an author, who at one time approves of the conduct of parliament in infifting on taking the command of the militia, and the appointment of the judges and governors of forts, together with the right of creating peers, into their own hands; and at another, declares himfelf delighted with a fettlement which fecured all thefe prerogatives to the Sovereign. The truth is, that the pretenfions of both parties were altogether inadmiffible; and though an ingenious advocate may find apologies for either in the peculiarity of their circumstances and fituation, it is obvious that thefe only apply to the moral conduct of the individuals, and do by no means extend to the merit or demerit of the actions they performed. Upon fome of the preliminary points, it may be difficult to determine to which fide a good patriot fhould have inclined; but, after the matter had come to the iffue of the fword, we are very clearly of opinion, that the fuccefs of the parliamentary arms was was rather to be defired than that of the royalifts. The King's victory would probably have subjected the country for ever to an arbitrary and oppreffive government; or if a degree of freedom and parliamentary interference had been permitted, it can fcarcely be doubted that the old diffenfions would have been renewed, and a fecond war engendered, of greater acrimony, and longer duration, than the former. Mr Millar is lefs merciful towards the Ufurper, than any of our historical writers that we remember. After enlarging upon his tyranny and injuftice, and on the fhameless profligacy with which he abandoned all thofe principles of religion and political independence with which he had fet out, he makes the following acute and characteristic remark upon the estimation he has obtained with posterity: • When we examine the conduct of Cromwell in all its parts, it may feem furprising that his memory has been treated with more lenity and indulgence than it certainly deferves. This may be explained from the influence of popular feelings; and ftill more from the character and fentiments of political parties. His great abilities, the fuccefs of all his undertakings, and the refpect which he commanded from all the powers of Europe, feized the imagination of Englishmen, and were calculated to gratify national vanity. The partizans of the house of Stuart were, at the fame time, induced to hold up the favourable fide of the policy of Cromwell, in order to blacken the memory of thofe patriots who were not lefs the enemies of that ufurper than of the abfolute power of the Crown. They affected to confider the ufurpation of the Protector as a neceffary confequence of the attempts to restrain the prerogative; were better pleased with the protectorate than with a republican fyftem; and feem to have felt towards him a fort of gratitude for overthrowing that form of government to which they were most adverfe.' Vol. III. p. 369-370. Of General Monk, Mr Millar believes that his original intention, in marching from Scotland, was to feize upon the protector's place for himself; and that he only tock up the idea of reftoring the exiled Monarch, when he faw that the fenfe of the nation was decidedly in favour of that measure. The conduct of Monk was certainly very mysterious, and, in one point, almost inexplicable: but we do not think there is any great likelihood in the folution of Mr Millar. In the fubfequent part of his treatife, Mr Millar makes but few observations that are not pretty familiar to all who are acquainted with this part of the English history. The precipitate and unconditional restoration of Charles II., he alleges, entailed upon the nation all its former diforders, and almost enfured a fecond harvest harvest of tumult and diffenfion. To the errors and weaknesses of that Prince, he shows no fort of indulgence; and is a little too harth and vindictive, we think, even to his unamiable brother, when he seems to regret that he was not compelled to atone for his misconduct by the forfeiture of his life, as well as of his dignity. He fays of him, As the character of this Prince procured no efteem, his misfortunes appear to have excited little compaffion. He poffeffed no amiable or refpectable qualities, to compenfate or alleviate his great public vices. His ambition was not connected with magnanimity; his obftinacy and zeal were not fupported by fteadiness and refolution; though, as it frequently happens, they appear to have been deeply tinctured with cruelty. The gravity of his deportment, and his high profeffions of religion, were difgraced by narrow prejudices, and by a courfe of diffimulation and falfehood. His fate was not more severe than he deserved; for, certaiuly, the fovereign of a limited monarchy cannot complain of injuftice, when he is expelled from that kingdom whofe government he has attempted to fubvert, and deprived of that power which he has grofsly and manifeftly abufed. Impartial juftice, perhaps, would determine that he was far from fuffering according to his demerits; that he was guilty of crimes, which, in their nature and confequences, infer the higheft enormity; and that, inftead of forfeiting his crown, he well deferved the highest punishment which the law can inflict. Vol. III. p. 434-435• The hiftory of the Revolution, and the subsequent fettlement of the conftitution, is given rather concisely, and without any reflections of much importance. This part of the work, however, contains a very clear and masterly account of the parties that divided and agitated the nation during this reign: and the following eulogium on the Prince of Orange, is written with more fpirit and animation than the greater part of the volume. It may be queftioned who, among ftatefmen and heroes, have dif played the greatest genius and abilities. It is yet more difficult, perhaps, to determine, who has been actuated by the most pure and ge. nuine principles of patriotifm: But, who is the monarch that has conferred the moft extenfive benefits upon mankind, will hardly be doubted, while the actions of William III. fhall hold a place in the annals of the world. Had it not been for the active, the persevering, and the fingle exertions of this Prince, it is more than probable that Britain would have been fubjected both to an ecclefiaftical and civil tyranny; that Lewis XIV. would have fubdued Holland, and the eftates in alliance with the Dutch; that the Proteftant interest. would, in a fhort time, have been annihilated; and that the greater. part of Europe would either have been reduced to a vaft, unwieldy defpotifm, like that of ancient Rome, or parcelled out among a few abfolute |