fluenced in their political conduct and sentiments by the reading of history, so far it may be of fome importance to the public, what opinions are diffeminated in a history of so much celebrity as that of Mr. Hume.

THAT Mr. Hume was very fuperficially acquainted with the earlier periods of the British History, has been. fhewn in a very able manner by the learned and ingenious Mr. Whitaker. It may also be observed, that, in many passages of his hiftory, Mr. Hume feems to take a particular pleasure in degrading the national character of the inhabitants of England: and, therefore, in the earlier part of his hiftory, he passes very flightly over those circumstances and tranfactions which reflect honour on the natives of this country, or which mark their courage and averfion to flavery; whilst he dwells, in a very copious manner, on those circum

R 2

circumftances and tranfactions in which they appear to disadvantage. It may poffibly be fuppofed by fome, that this accufation against Mr. Hume, is only founded on his having guarded against the national prepoffeffions and prejudices of preceding English hiftorians. But this is far from being the cafe: and those who will take the pains to compare Mr. Hume's work with the most authentic and impartial writers on the history of this country, will find, that, in many instances, he has done great injuftice to our anceftors. Whether he was led to this by his affectation of fingularity, or by what other motive, I fhall not take upon me to determine.

THE fpirited oppofition made by the Britons to Julius Cæfar and the Romans, the heroism and noble behaviour of Caractacus, the bravery of Boadicea, and other striking

1

events characteristic of the courage of the antient Britons', are very flightly paffed over by this hiftorian; whilst he dwells very

It is obferved by Mr. Whitaker, that "it is "one of the most fingular events in the Roman an*nals, and reflects a peculiar honour upon the bravery "of the Britons, that, in the long course of more << than three centuries, the Romans could never make "an entire conqueft of the island. And this was the "only country in the world, I think, in which the "Romans reduced the greatest part of the natives, and

yet were for ever beat off by the fmall remainder of them. The conqueft was attempted by fome of the greatest generals that were produced in the are "mies of Rome, was profecuted with the greatest "vigour and conduct, and yet was never accomplished. "All the efforts of the Romans, however fuccessful "at first, were finally baffled by the Britons. And

they still lived independent in their mountains, and "looked down with pity upon the rest of their bre"thren, ftooping to the power, and adopting the "manners of Italy." Hift. of Manchester, vol. ii. Pi 211.

minutely on the meannefs of their applications to the Romans for affiftance against the Picts and Scots, when the Romans had deserted this island, and when many of the Britons had quite loft that martial spirit by which they had formerly been distinguished, in consequence of the luxury and effeminacy which had been artfully introduced amongst them by the Romans'.

MR. Hume was extremely defirous of representing the government of England as arbitrary, at least as much fo as he could with any degree of plaufibility, in the periods preceding the acceffion of the House of Stuart, He was led to this by his desire of vindicating, or extenuating, the tyranny of that family, under the pretence, that they found the government defpotic, or

Vid. Hume's Hiftory of England, vol. i.' p. 12, 13, 14. edit. 8vo. 1763. ;

nearly

nearly fo, on their acceffion to the English throne. But notwithstanding all that he, or others, may have advanced upon this subject, there appears to have been a confiderable degree of liberty in this country, from the earliest periods of which there are any notices in history. The inhabitants of Britain were antiently divided into distinct communities, governed by distinct kings. And it is observed by Mr. Whitaker, that "the monarchies of Britain acknowledged

66

no indefeasible right of fucceffion. And "they were as little abfolute and arbitrary "in their nature. The Britons were not "unacquainted, though history has never fuppofed them to be actually acquaint“ ed, with that properest restraint upon ❝ monarchical defpotism, the rational, the "manly, and the free inftitution of par. "liaments. No power but the royal could "either make or abrogate a public law. "And fixed upon this neceffary principle R 4 " hangs