THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For JANUARY, U'A R 1772. ART. I. The Hiftory of England, from the earliest Accounts to the Revolution in 1688. By William Smith, M. D. 8vo. 2 Vols. bound. Owen. 1771. 12 S. T is pleasant to remark the acrimonious cenfure with which this hiftorian, in the introduction to his work, has mentioned those learned and ingenious men, who have gone before him in delineating the hiftory of this ifland. We are curfed, he obferves, with a variety of hiftorical authors, who have defcribed, in different and contradictory colours, the most eminent perfonages, and who have reprefented the most momentous tranfactions, with a train of falfe and inconfiftent circumftances. He accounts, it feems, as nothing the penetration of Brady, the laborious refearches of Tyrrel, the industry and knowledge of Carte, the eloquence, the dignity, and the precifion of Hume*. He fancies, that he has greater capacity, and has had better opportunities of information, than thefe * Having taken occafion to differ from Dr. Robertfon in relation to the origin of the Scots, our Author expreffes his opinion of that hiftorian in the following modeft and polite terms: Indeed, our modern Scottish hiftorian, Dr. Robertfon, is no romancer; I wish I could likewife fay no flory-teller, for he gives himfelf no troubie about the ancient Scots: It did not anfwer his purpose to dive into the antiquity of the Scottish nation: no matter to him from whence, or at what time they came to this ifland; his readers may believe, they came from the moon in the days of Noah for what he cares. His intention certainly was to ingratiate himself with the English; and, like a mercenary writer, to prefent the public with an account of a few modern reigns, in which he advances many well-drefied falfehoods. Indeed his fpurious brats are fet off with all the fuperb trappings of elegance of ftyle and purity of diction; but thefe will not excufe him in the eyes of his difcerning readers, when he attempts to impofe upon their underflandings, falfe, fcandalous, and malicious reports.' VOL. XLVI. B celebrated celebrated writers; and he does not fcruple to infinuate that his performance will correct and fupply their defects and omiffions, and explain, with a perfpicuity hitherto unknown, the nature and form of out conftitution, with the controverted and problematical parts of our history. But notwithstanding the lofty exordium with which our Author is introduced his performance, we fcruple not to pronounce that it poffeffes no kid of merit. Unaided by recards, or ability, and even without the affiftance of prior compofitions, which he has ventured to condemn, he has haftily thrown together a compilation of English affairs; in which, to extreme vanity, and grofs ignorance, he has joined the most unmanly and illiberal prejudices. As an advocate for the divine and indefeasible right of kings, he inculcates the moft flavish principles. A fovereign he confiders as the vicegerent of the Deity, and he imagines, that no acts of oppreffion, however atrocious, can invalidate his authority. The subject muft yield to him, in every inftance, the most fubmiffive obedience. In confequence of thefe bafe and exploded maxims, he afferts, that the liberties we enjoy were extorted from our monarchs. The ancient and inconteftable privileges of the people he reprefents as groundlefs and vifionary. The transfer of the crown to the duke of Normandy he treats as a conqueft. The Magna Charta and the Charta de Ferefta were, in his opinion, the fruits of impiety and rebellion. The revival of the reprefentation of the Commons under Henry III. he mentions as an ufurpation. The foundation of our excellent conftitution, he afcribes to conceffions exacted by force, or purchafed by fraud. While his narrow prepoffeffions have feduced him to run. counter to the whole tenor of our hiftory, he has not been able to give any value to his work, by elegance of manner, or the charms of compofition. Under every afpect in which it can be viewed, it exhibits the moft glaring marks of incapacity and weakness. As a fpecimen of its execution, we fhall prefent to our readers the account which it gives of the trial and death of Charles I. The Independents being mafters of all, a committee was appointed, 23d December, to draw up a falfe and treasonable. charge against the king. Now the height of all iniquity and fanatical extravagance draws on. But the narration of such daring impiety, fuch fhocking barbarity, as the public trial and execution of fo pious, fo juft, fo merciful, fo brave a prince, by the hands of his own fubjects, is too grievous and infupportable a subject to dwell long upon it. • After |