those superstitions which corrupt true religion, as to accuse the adversary of a pernicious minister of being an enemy to all government. He who merely censures the abuse of an institution, cannot justly be said to argue against the use of it. Our author's attention being called to the subject of the legislative union between England and Scotland, by an intended re-publication of De Foe's history of that memorable transaction, he wrote, in 1787, a judicious essay, calculated for an introduction to that work. In the following year, he published observations relative to the tax upon window-lights, the shop-tax, and the impost upon hawkers and pedlars. He condemned the first as absurd and unjustifiable, being a tax on the light of day, and not on property, but on the absence of property-on apertures, holes, vacuities, emptiness. He reprobated the second as a tax upon the very reverse of property; upon a debt,—that is, on the rent payable for the house to which the shop belonged; and the third he disapproved, as injurious and oppressive. The momentous question of the regency could not be expected to escape his notice, or elude his inquiries. He therefore, in 1789, presented to the public some "Observations upon the National Embarrassment, and "the Proceedings in Parliament relative to the same.” He denied that the king's political situation was sufficiently analogous to any of the cases stated by the leading members of the two houses; and affirmed that it bore a greater resemblance, in effect, to the case of Don Sebastian, king of Portugal, who after he had been defeated by the Moors, was "a captive* in an unknown land, in unknown hands; an access to his person being * It is more probable that this prince was slain in the conflict. "deemed impossible, and even not to be thought of.” He proceeded to argue, that the act of the sovereign, when he originally convoked the existing parliament, amounted to the delegation of a general trust to govern the realm in his name; that the meeting of the lords and commons implied an acceptance of such trust; and therefore that the royal authority resided, upon the king's incapacity, in a convention of the two houses. This fair and legitimate conclusion met with the concurrence of the majority of the nation. I have now mentioned all the works of M. de Lolme, of which I could either procure a copy, or meet with an account. Like many other literary men, he did not so far profit by his labors as to secure himself against the evils of poverty. He certainly deserved a greater degree of patronage than he appears to have received; and, if a pension had been conferred upon him for his able elucidation of the principles of the English government, it would have been better bestowed than those donatives usually are: the giver and the receiver would have been equally honored. How long M. de Lolme remained in England after the commencement of the French revolution, I cannot inform the reader. What opinion, however, he entertained of that event, we may judge from his known regard for social order and well-regulated liberty. He must have perceived, that the original projectors, if their intentions were just or patriotic, were precipitate and violent in their reforms; and that their successors, aiming at inordinate power, had no sense of humanity or of justice, no regard for the true honor of their country, or the welfare and happiness of the people. He died in the spring of the year 1807, leaving a name (if not of the first celebrity, yet) of considerable eminence in the annals of literature. His perception was acute, and his mind vigorous. Not content with a hasty or superficial observation of the characters of men and the affairs of states, he examined them with a philosophic spirit and a discerning eye. He could ably speculate on the different modes of government, develope the disguised views of princes and ministers, and detect the arts and intrigues of demagogues and pseudo-patriots. He could perceive the defects of the boasted constitutions of the ancient republics, and the advantages of a limited monarchy, like that of Great-Britain. He could appreciate the blessings of regular government, free on the one hand, from despotism, and on the other, from licentiousness; and he was as sensible of the value of true liberty, as of the necessity of legal restraint and subordination. He had the art of pleasing in conversation, though the graces did not appear in his manners or deportment. He had a turn for pleasantry and humor; and has been compared with Burke for the variety of his allusions, and the felicity of his illustrations. His general temper has been praised; but his spirit was considered by many as too high for his fortune: yet in one respect, his mind assimilated to the occasional penury under which he labored; for, in his mode of living he could imitate the temperance and self-denial of a philosopher. CONTENTS. Page CHAP. I. Causes of the Liberty of the English Na- tion.-Reasons of the Difference between the Go- vernment of England, and that of France.-In England, the great Power of the Crown, under |