liberty; they have ever fince mutually advanced each other; and we may continue free, rich, and happy, fo long as we guard againft

for both prince and people to fubdue, with all its legions of wealthy drones, more haughty and oppreffive than the temporal barons; the Romish priests adding grofs impofitions on the mind, to maintain thofe on the body. Letters firft difpofed the people to break loofe from this fpecies of flavery; and thirit of power inclined the prince to fhut out the bishop of Rome with all his trumpery, and become his own pope: both were gainers by the victory. But letters at length taught the people too much for the prince; they began to understand that tyranny of any fpecies was unjuft; and that It is evident thefe it was only fupported by the fufferers. growing powers of prince and people muft now interfere, no inThe trading intetermediate object remaining between them.

reft was grown formidable, and joined with the landed gentry in difputing the excrbitant powers of the crown when James I. arrived; who endeavoured to intrench himfelf behind a new doctrine, of the divine right of kings; and united with a willing church, young as yet in point of reformation, for their mutual defence: (the Stuarts were moreover fufficiently inclined to bring in the papal power again, as more favourable to their defpotic views, would the fpirit of the people have fuffered it.) But this doctrine rendered more odious by the alliance which fupported it, would not fhelter them; and Charles I. was the king with whom the important struggle commenced it was indeed as natural for him to perfift in the retention of those powers which the immediate preceding king had exercised; as it was for the people, confcious of their strength, to endeavour to reduce the regal power within reasonable limits. Had the general views of either of the parties extended to perceive the nature of this great crifis; a more peaceable fettlement had perhaps taken place: but they both acted under the influence of circumftances, that neither of them appeared to underítand; at leaft Charles, unhappily for himself, was the most ignorant in this respect. He continued tenacious and refractory, the commons grew affuming by their fuccefs; when the army under a daring chief took the game out of both their hands, and brought the belt of the Stuarts to disgraceful death. An ufurper fucceeded him, and after his death, military tyranny occafioned the fons of Charles to be invited home as the beft alternative: but the people foon found that if the father chaftifed them with whips, the fons chaftifed them with fcorpions. Nor was the English conftitution finally fettled, till the nation called in a foreigner who affifted in driving out the laft tyrant, and accepted the fovereignty on ftipulated articles.

Thus it will appear that those who derive the establishment of English liberties from remote antiquity, reft them on a treacherous foundation: that they began early in London and other corporations is true; but it is equally true that it was not till trade had fapped the foundation of the feudal inftitutions, that they became general: nor was it till force taught our kings to be juft, that the rightful claims of the people were fully admitted and confirmed.

D 4

Thus

though

against the extenfion of military power, which, fince the reftoration of Charles II. has been again growing up, in another form, and which, however plaufible in its prefent inftitution, may, without due circumfpection on the part of the people, be fome time or other milapplied '-The influence, however, of commerce upon liberty is fo great, that till we have loft the one, we need not be very apprchenfive that the other will be fubversed. Yet a ftanding army will ever be juftly regarded as an object of the people's jealousy.

Our Author's remark, on the importance of the history of London, is certainly juft. It includes, fays he more than the words, at first fight, feem to import Local as it may appear, the undertaking is no less than an hiftory of the operation of

though no original compact can be actually produced between king and people, a recent one is to be found at this revolution, as valid as if it had the fanction of ages; when government was at last settled on the broad bafis of popular affent and fupport.

The happy effe&is of this equitable eftablishment, were foon feen in the rapid improvement fince made in every thing conducive to civil fociety. The fecurity of perfonal freedom, and property, gave free fcope to human abilities, which the pooreft of mankind enjoy equally with the great, all the difference confifting in the cultivation of them; and private intereft ftimulating every one to labour in their feveral departments, we arrive at this conclufion, that the freeft nation will always be the moft rich and powerful. How long a nation thus defcribed, can preferve these characters, is uncertain riches produce luxury, and however favourable luxury may at firt prove to industry and commerce; its tendency to unman the body and vitiate the mind, fatally counteracts this fpecious temporary advantage. We may already begin to perceive this fad truth, without any comfortable prospect of being able to check it; for when a general depravation of manners takes place, a return to virtue is walking backward, and experience which teaches us that the natural progrefs of all earthly things is onward, difcredits any fuch retrograde movements. These circumstances appear very unpropitious to the dura tion of liberty.

All things degenerate in time, and nothing fooner than government: however prudently it may be framed, however accurately its powers may be denned and limited, it is continually encroaching directly or indirectly over the people. Perhaps in fome future time, which is hoped to be yet far diftant, another convulfion may be needful to reduce it to its first principles, and effect a regeneration: for it is a difagreeable tuth that nothing lefs than the united efforts of the people, are able to effect this indifpenfible work, when grieyance: long fubmitted to, increafe beyond fufferance. Whether po Merity, enervated by voluptuoufnels, may think it worth their attention to affert their claim to the invaluable legacies tranfmitted down to them by their ancestors; is a point that must be left to their con fideration.

manufactures

manufactures and trade in civilizing the natives of a rude and barbarous island.'

After briefly mentioning the great national confequence which the citizens of London have acquired by that wealth which is the natural produce of industry; and touching also on the influence which the advancement of commerce hath had on the improvement of our civil policy; Mr. N. proceeds to ex-' patiate on the amazing extent of the mercantile connections of the citizens of London: an extent, fays he, much beyond whatever the power of antient Rome ever reached by the fword. Here he introduces a comparison, by which the glory of the antient emporium of the world fuffers great diminution. London, he afferts, derives more folid advantages from a reciprocation of friendly offices with all the world, than the latter ever enjoyed from an over-grown hoftile dominion. In Rome, he adds, the ftate, collectively, was powerful indeed, but individuals were poor; until the plunder of provinces enriched her commanders: when the foon fell a prey, first to her own treacherous fervants, and afterward to rude northern invaders. In London we fee individuals wealthy, because they are induftrious; the conveniences of polished fociety being enjoyed, in fome degree by all ranks of her citizens. The agregate, therefore, is powerful; for riches are the finews of war, to a proverb. The liberties of the citizens of London have already exifted under a continual increafe, longer than thofe of the afpiring Romans; and they fill flourish under the cultivation of the peaceful arts.'

But while London appears fuperior to Rome, when their circumstances are thus contrafted, it is here observed that the comparative advantages of their hiftorians are inverted; that the grandeur of martial atchievements gives a brilliancy to the records of the one; while the useful labours of commerce, where the writer dares not take any liberty with truth, and where there are few events to furprize and captivate the imagination, feldom intereft any but the ferious and contemplative. The fenators of Rome, moreover, were the national legiflators; the aldermen and common-council of London are merely municipal lawgivers, fubordinate to the ftate.-Hence the hiftory of London is chiefly employed in tranfactions of a lower order, (though not, therefore lefs worthy of attention) and is obliged to defcend to more minute particulars than confift with the objects of national hiftory. Many incidents, that were of a cafual or local nature, unavoidably appear in the form of detached narratives; and fometimes interrupt the connection of matters that have a natural dependence on each other. For thefe reafons alone, were there no other caufe for difclaiming Fretenfions to it, elegance of diclion is more than the Writer

of

of this hiftory can promife: he will only plead his endeavours to render the Work faithful and accurate.'

Among other affiftances, the Author acknowledges his obligations to two elaborate and valuable works; Anderfon's History of Commerce t, and Hume's Hiftory of England. From the one he has derived the knowledge of a variety of curious particulars, the peculiar objects of his undertaking; from the other, a clear and ingenious deduction of the progress of the English conftitution, down to its prefent frame.' Rapin, Tindal's continuation of Rapin, Smollet, and the Annual Regifter, have all contributed their fhares; and by the help of these, and other materials, Mr. N. has been enabled to bring his hiftory of our flourishing metropolis down to the close of the year 1771.

With regard to the defcriptive part of the undertaking, he tells us, in his preface, that as he was born a citizen of London, and has spent the greatest part of his life in it, his defcriptions of places and things may be supposed to have been drawn from actual knowledge;' and this, he avers, is materially true, in most inftances, though it cannot extend to all cafes." He acknowledges that, for his own eafe, in fo multifarious an undertaking, he has frequently availed himself of delineations drawn up, and remarks made, by other hands;' yet, as he wishes not to decorate himself with borrowed plumes, he would have it remarked, that the frequent corrections and additions. which thefe borrowed defcriptions, &c. required, have in truth given him an exclufive property in almost every article of that kind which he has adopted.

As to his copper-plates, which are fufficiently numerous, he does not boast of their elegance, and of the great mafters by which they have been drawn and engraved, in the cant ftyle of bookfellers and hackney editors; on the contrary, he only mentions them in the following decent terms: The copper-plates, fays he, will it is hoped, be found fufficiently expreffive to convey a diftinct and agreeable idea of the objects reprefented. One or two of them have indeed fallen fhort of what the Author had a juft right to expect; but there are feveral of them that do credit to the names of the engravers: the general plan of the metropolis, with the map of the country from thirty to forty miles round, may be affirmed fuperior, both in fize and correctness, to thofe contained in any other work.'

We should now proceed to give fome fpecimens of the manner in which Mr. N. hath executed both the hiftorical and defcriptive parts of his work; but as the article is already extended to a fufficient length, we muft defer the completion of it to a future opportunity.

For an account of this work, fee Rev. vol. xxx. p.

G.

81-197

ART.

ART. VIII. Jean Hennuyer, Bishop of Lixieux: or the Maffacre of 8t. Bartholomew; a Dramatic Entertainment in three Acts. Tranflated from the French. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Leacroft. 1773.

T

HIS Piece has been attributed to M. de. Voltaire, and it has fome internal marks which may juftify the afcription. In an excellent preface, the Author gives us the following account of his hero, and at the fame time, the ftory of his Play.

Jean Hennuyer was born at St. Quintin in the diocese of Laon, in 1497. He was at the univerfity of Paris, in the college of Navarre, where he was burfar. He took his degrees, and was received doctor. After that he was chofen tutor to Charles of Bourbon, and Charles of Lorrain. It appears, that before he was doctor, he had been preceptor to Anthony of Bourbon, Duke of Vendome, and afterwards king of Navarre: at the fame time he was appointed profeffor of divinity. It is not precisely known in what year he appeared at court; but it is certain, that he was first almoner of Henry II. and that this prince foon made him his confeffor, which he was till the king's death. He was likewife confeffor of Catharine de Medicis. It may be obferved, that they were not vulgar confciences he had to manage. Being appointed bishop of Sodere in 1557, he did not take poffeffion of this bishoprick, undoubtedly, because he was retained at court. But after the death of the cardinal d'Annebaut, bishop of Lizieux, in the month of June 1558, Francis II. gave this bishoprick to Hennuyer.-It was here, and at the time of the maffacre of St. Bartholomew, that he gave this example of humanity, which alone rendered him immortal. The king's lieutenant of his province, coming to communicate to him the order he had received from the court, to maffacre all the Hugonots of Lizieux, Jean Hennuyer opposed it, with great firmnefs, and declared his oppofition in form; he perfuaded the lieutenant to defer the maffacre, and by that wife delay, he faved the Calvinifts of his city and diocefe.-I know that people have endeavoured to deprive him of the glory of having faved the proteftants; but feveral hiftorians agree to give him this honour. Atrocious and antient crimes, which frighten the imagination, are believed on much feebler proofs; why is it then fo difficult to believe an action, which is at bottom but humane? As much a panegyrift as I am, I apprehend it poffible, that he may be admired too much.-It has been a question much agitated by writers, whether this bishop was a Dominican or a Sorbonift? He was a man; which cannot well be faid of all his cotemporaries.'

After a short account of the death of this good prelate, and making fome ftriking reflections on various kinds of perfecution, the Author concludes his preface in the following manner:

• If