Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

by the indelible character of nobility, the equal patrimony of all their children, from the poffibility of their most remote defcendants being reftored to the general mafs. The nobles of England are a Senate of 200. The nobleffe of France were a tribe of 200,000. Nobility is in England only hereditary, fo far as its profeffed object, the fupport of a hereditary fenate, demands. It is therefore defcendible only to one heir. Nobility in France was as widely inheritable as its real purpose, the maintainance of a privileged caft, prefcribed. It was therefore neceffarily defcendible to all male children.

There are other points of contraft ftill more important. The Nobleffe of France were at once formidable from their immenfe body of property, and dependant from the indigence of their Patrician rabble of cadets, whom honourinfpired with fervility and fervility excluded from the path to independence. They in fact poffeffed fo large a portion of the landed property, as to be juftly, and almoft exclufively confidered as the landed intereft of the kingdom. To this formidable property was added the revenues of the church, monopolized by their children. The younger branches of thefe opulent families had in general no patrimony but their honours and their word. They were therefore reduced to feek fostune and distinction in military dependence on the Crown. If they were generous, the habits of military fervice devoted them from loyalty; if they were prudent, the hope of military promotion devoted them from intereft to the king. How immenfe therefore and irrefiftible would the Royal in fluence have been in elections, where the majority of the voters were the fervants and creatures of the Crown? What would be thought in England of a Houfe of Lords, which, while it reprefented or contained the whole landed intereft of the kingdom, fhould

neceffarily have a majority of its mem bers feptennially or triennially nomi. nated by the King? Yet it would ftill yield to the French Upper House of M. Calonne ; for the monied and commercial interefts of England, which would continue to be reprefented by the Commons, are important and formidable, but in France they are comparably infignificant. It would have been a government where the Arifto, cracy could have been ftrong only against the people, impotent against the crown. This fecond arrangement then is equally repugnant to the theory of the British confiitution as the first. There remains only fome mode of felection of a body from amidst the nobility and clergy to form an Upper Houfe, and to this there are infuperable objections. Had the right of thus forming a branch of the legislature by a fingle act of prerogative been given to the king, it must have ftrengthened his influence to a degree terrible at any period, but fatal in the moment of political reform. Had any mode of election by the provinces, or the legif. lature, been adopted, or if they had been vefted with any control on the nomination of the crown, the new dig. nity would have been fought with an activity of corruption and intrigue, of which, in fuch a national convulfion, it is impoffible to eftimate the danger. No general principle of felection, fuch as that of opulence or antiquity, would have remedied the evil, for the excluded and degraded nobles would feel the principle, that nobility is the equal and inalienable patrimony of all, By the abolition of nobility, no nobleman was degraded, for to degrade is to lower from a rank that cominues to exift in fociety. No man can be degraded when the rank he poffeffed no longer exifts. But had the rank of nobility remained in the mode of which wer have been speaking, the great body of the nobles would indeed, in a proper and penal fenfe, have been

degraded

degraded, the new dignity of their former, peers would would have kept alive the memory of what they once poffeffed, and provoked them to enter

prizes far more fatal than refentment of an indignity that is at least broken by divifion, and impartially inflicted on the greatest and most obfcure.

Memoirs of the Life of Dr Robert Henry, Author of the Hiftory of Great Britain, written on a new Plan.

R ROBERT HENRY was the in the old church, and remained in

at

Mairtown in the parish of St Ninian's, North Britain, and of Jean Galloway daughter of ———————— Galloway of Bur rowmeadow in Stirlingshire. He was born on the 18th of February 1718; and having early refolved to devote himfelf to a literary profeffion, was educated first under a Mr John Ni cholfon at the parish-school of St Ni nian's, and for fome time at the gram mar fchool of Stirling. He complet ed his courfe of academical study at the university of Edinburgh, and af. terwards became mafter of the gram mar-fchool of Annan. He was licenfed to preach on the 27th of March 1746, and was the first licentiate of the prefbytery of Annan after its erection into a feparate pryfbytery. Soon after, he received a call from a congre gation of Prefbyterian diffenters at CarLife, where he was ordained in Nov. 1748. In this ftation he remained 12 years, and on the r3th of Auguft 1760 became pastor of a diffenting congregation in Berwick upon Tweed. Here he married, in 1763, Ann Balderflon, daughter of Thomas Balderfton furgeon in Berwick; by whom he had no children, but with whom he enjoyed to the end of his life a large fhare of domeftic happiness. He was removed from Berwick to be one of the minifters of Edinburgh in November 1768; was minister of the church of the New Grey Friars from that time till November 1776; and then became colleague minifter

that station till his death.

degree of Doctor in Divinity was conferred on him by the university of Edinburgh in 1770; and in 1774 he was unanimoufly chofen moderator of the general affembly of the church of Scotland, and is the only perfon on record who obtained that distinction the firft time he was a member of affembly.

From thefe facts, which contain the outlines of Dr Henry's life, few events can be expected to fuit the purpofe of the biographer. Though he must have been always diftinguished among his private friends, till he was tranflated to Edinburgh, he had few opportunities of being known to the public. The compofition of fermons must have occupied a chief part of his time during his refidence at Carlife, as his industry in that station is known to have rendered his labours in this department eafy to him during the rest of his life. But even there he found leifure for other fludies; and the knowledge of claffical literature, in which he eminently excelled, foon enabled him to acquire an extent of information which qualified him for fomething more important than he had hitherto in his view.

Soon after his removal to Berwick, he published a fcheme for raising a fund for the benefit of the widows and orphans of Proteftant diffenting minif ters in the north of England. This idea was probably fuggested by the profperity of the fund which had, al

[ocr errors]

moft 30 years before, been established riod, it arranges, under separate heads

for a provifion to minifters widows, &c. in Scotland. But the fituations of the clergy of Scotland were very different from the circumftances of diffenting minifters in England. Annuities and provifions were to be fecured to the families of diffenters, without fubjecting the individuals (as in Scotland) to a proportional annual contribution, and without fuch means of creating a fund as could be the fubject of an act of parliament to fecure the annual payments. The acuteness and activity of Dr Henry furmounted thefe difficulties; and chiefly by his exertions, this ufeful and benevolent inftitution commenced about the year 1762. The management was entrusted to him for several years; and its fuccefs has exceeded the most fanguine expectations which were formed of it. The plan itself, now fufficiently known, it is unneceffary to explain minutely. But it is mentioned here, becaufe Dr Henry was accustomed in the last years of his life to speak of this inftitution with peculiar affection, and to reflect on its progrefs and utility with that kind of fatisfaction which a good n an can only receive from “the labour of love and of good works."

It was probably about the year 1763 that he first conceived the idea of his History of Great Britain; a work already established in the public opipion; and which will certainly be regarded by pofterity, not only as a book which has greatly enlarged the phere of hiftory, and gratifies our cu riofity on a variety of fubjects which fall not within the limits prefcribed by preceding hiftorians, but as one of the molt accurate and authentic repo. fitories of historical information which this Country has produced. The plan adopted by Dr Henry, which is indifputably his own, and its peculiar advantages, are fufficiently explained in its general preface. In every pe

or chapters, the civil and military hiftory of Great Britain; the hiftory of religion; the history of our conftitution, government, laws, and courts of Juftice; the hiftory of learning, of learned men, and of the chief feminaries of learning; the history of arts ; the history of commerce, of shipping, of money or coin, and of the price of commodities; and the history of manners, virtues, vices, cuftoms, language, dress, diet, and amusements. Under thefe feven heads, which extend the province of an hiftorian greatly beyond its ufual limits, every thing curious or interefting in the hif tory of any country may be comprehended. But it certainly required more than a common fhare of literary courage to attempt, on fo large a scale, a fubject fo intricate and extenfive as the hiftory of Britain from the invafion of Julius Cæfar. That Dr Henry neither over-rated his powers nor his induftry, could only have been proved by the fuccefs and reputation of his works.

But he foon found that his refidence at Berwick was an infuperable obftacle to the minute researches which the execution of his plan required. His fituation there excluded him from the means of confulting the original authorities; and though he attempted to find access to them by means of his literary friends, and with their affiftance made fome progrefs in his work, his information was notwithstanding fo incomplete, that he found it impoffible to profecute his plan to his own fatisfaction, and was at laft compelled to relinquish it.

By the friendship of Gilbert Laurie, Efq; late Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and one of his majesty's commiffioners of excife in Scotland, who had married the fifter of Mrs Henry, he was removed to Edinburgh in 1768; and it is to this event that the public are indebted for his profecution of the

Hiftory

Hiftory of Great Britain. His accefs to the public libraries, and the means of fupplying the materials which thefe did not afford him, were from that time used with fo much diligence and prefeverance, that the first volume of his Hiftory in quarto was published in 1771, and the fecond in 1774, the third in 1777, the fourth in 1781, and the fifth (which brings down the History to the acceffion of Henry VII.) in 1785. The fubject of thefe volumes compreheads the most intricate and obfcure periods of our hiftory; and when we confider the fcanty and fcattered materials which Dr Henry has digested, and the accurate and minute information which he has given us under every chapter of his work, we must have a high opinion both of the learning and industry of the author, and of the vigour and activity of his mind: efpecially when it is added, that he employed no amanuenfis, but completed the manufcript with his own hand; and that, excepting the first volume, the whole book, fuch as it is, was printed from the original copy. Whatever corrections were made on it, were inferted by interlineations, or in revifing the proof-fheets. He found it neceffary, indeed, to confine himself to a first copy, from an unfortunate tremor in his hand, which made writing extremely inconvenient, which obliged him to write with his paper on a book placed on his knee inftead of a table, and which unhappily increased to fuch a degree, that in the laft years of his life he was often unable to take his victuals without affiftance. An attempt which he made after the publication of the fifth volume to employ an amanuenfis did not fucceed. Never having been accustomed to dictate his compofitions, he found it impoffble to acquire a new habit; and though he perfevered but a few days in the attempt, it had a fenfible effect on his health, which he never afterwards recovered. An author has no right to

claim indulgence, and is ftill lefs entitled to credit from the public for any thing which can be afcribed to negligence in committing his manu fcripts to the prefs; but confidering the difficulties which Dr Henry furmounted, and the accurate refearch and information which diftinguish his hiftory, the circumftances which have been mentioned are far from being uninterefting, and must add confiderably to the opinion formed of his merit among men who are judges of what he has done. He did not profefs to study the ornaments of language; but his arrangement is uniformly regular and natural, and his ftyle fimple and perfpicuous. More than this he has not attempted, and this cannot be denied him. He believed that the time which might be spent in polifhing or rounding a fentence was more ufefully employed in inveftigat ing and afcertaining a fact: and as a book of facts and folid information, fupported by authentick documents, his hiftory will ftand a comparison with any other hiftory of the fame riod.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

But Dr Henry had other difficul ties to furmount than thofe which related to the compofition of his work, Not having been able to tranfact with the bookfellers to his fatisfaction, the five volumes were originally published at the risk of the author. When the first volume appeared, it was cenfured with an unexampled acrimony and perfeverence. Magazines, reviews, and even newfpapers, were filled with abufive remarks and invectives, in which both the author and the book were treated with contempt at and fourtility. When an author has once fubmitted his works to the public, he has no right to complain of the juft feve rity of criticifm. But Dr Henry had to contend with the inveterate corn of malignity. In compliance with the ufual cuftom, he had permitted a fermon to be published which he had preached before the Society in Scot

land

land for Propagating Chriftian know- ceeded. The book, though printed

ledge in 1773; a compofition containing plain good sense on a common fubject, from which he expected no reputation. This was eagerly feized on by the adverfaries of his History, and torn to pieces with a virulence and afperity which no want of merit in the fermon could justify or explain. An anonymous letter had appeared in a new paper to vindicate the Hiftory, from fome of the unjuft cenfures which had been published, and afferting from the real merit and accuracy of the book, the author's title to the approbation of the public. An anfwer appeared in the courfe of the following week, charging him, in terms equally confident and indecent, with having written this letter in his own praife. The efforts of malignity feldom fail to defeat their purpofe, and to recoil on those who direct them. Dr Henry had many friends, and till lately had not difcovered that he had any enemies. But the author of the anonymous vindication was unknown to him, till the learned and refpectable Dr Macqueen, from the indignation excited by the confident petulance of the anfwer, informed him that the letter had been written by him. Thefe anecdotes are still remembered. The abufe of the Hiftofy, which began in Scotland, was renewed in fome of the periodical pub, lications in South Britain; though it is juftice to add (without meaning to refer to the candid obfervations of English critics,) that in both kingdoms the afperity originated in the fame quarter, and that paragraphs and criticifms, written at Edinburgh were printed in London. The fame Spirit appeared in Strictures published on the fecond and third volumes; but by this time it had in a great meafure loft the attention of the public. The malevolence was fufficiently understood, and had long before become fatal to the circulation of the periodical paper from which it originally pro,

V

[ocr errors]

for the author, had fold beyond his moft fanguine expectations; and had received both praife and patronage from men of the firit literary characters in the kingdom: and though, from the alarm which had been raised, the bookfeliers did not venture to purchafe the property till after the publi cation of the fifth volume, the work was established in the opinion of the public, and at laft rewarded the author with a high degree of celebrity, which he happily lived to enjoy.

In an article relating to Dr Henry's life, not to have mentioned the oppofition which his Hiftory encountered, would have been both affectation and injustice. The facts are fufficiently remembered, and are unfortunately too recent to be more minutely explained. That they contributed at first to retard the fale of the work is undeniable, and may be told without regret now that its reputation is established. The book has raised itfelf to eminence as a History of Great Britain by its own merits; and the means employed to obftruct its progrefs have only ferved to embellish its fuccefs.

Dr Henry was no doubt encouraged from the firft by the decided approbation of fome of his literary friends, who were allowed to be the moft competent judges of his fubject; and in particular by one of the most eminent hiftorians of the prefent age, whofe hiftory of the fame periods juftly poffeffes the higheft reputation. The following character of the first and fecond volumes was drawn up by that gentleman, and is well entitled to be inferted in a narrative of Dr Henry's life." Thofe who profels a high efteem for the first volume of Dr Henry's hiftory, I may venture to fay, are almoft as numerous as those who have perufed it, provided they be competent judges of a work of that nature, and are acquainted with the difficulties which attend fuch an une

der.

« ZurückWeiter »