hiftorical narrations, which may both relieve and entertain the reader.'

Works of this kind, fo laborious, fo expenfive, and which neceffarily furnish employment for the best part of a man's life, cannot poffibly be accomplished unless the public enters with fpirit and munificence into their fupport. We are glad, therefore, to find, that Mr. Hutchins hath been fo liberally countenanced in his great undertaking, by a very numerous and respectable lift of fubfcribers and patrons t. If the hiftory of every other county were as well executed, and published under equal encouragement, what a noble mafs of materials would be thence formed for a general defcription of the whole kingdom! And what admirable lights would from thence be reflected both on the natural and civil hiftory of this country!

* Above thirty years are elapfed fince this work was undertaken.' Pref. p. vii.

Let me repeat my acknowledgments to all who have affifted or encouraged this work, who enabled me to finish and then to pub lith it; but particularly to thofe noblemen and gentlemen, who, by their munificence have contributed to the embellishment of it, by giving copper-plates of their feats, and many remarkable antiquities within the county, which have rendered the work, in this refpect, truly valuable.' Ibid.

We must repeat, that many of the copper-plates are, beyond all comparison, fuperior to every thing of the kind in any of our preceding county-hiftories. If Dr. Gower, in his hiftory of Cheshire, can equal them, he will not baulk the expectations of the Public.

ART. VI. An Answer to the Queries contained in a Letter to Dr. Shebbeare, printed in the Public Ledger, August 10. Together with Animadverfions on two Speeches in Defence of the Printers of a Paper, fubfcribed a South Briton. The first pronounced by the Right Hon. Thomas Townshend, in the Houfe of Commons, and printed in the London Packet of February 18. The Second by the right learned Counsellor Lee, in Guildhall, and printed in the Public Ledger of Auguft 12. In the Examination of which a Comparifon naturally arises between the public and private Virtues of their prefent Majesties, and thofe of King William and Queen Mary. The Merits, also, of Roman Catholics, and of Diffenters from the Church of England, refpecting Allegiance and Liberty, and their Claims to national Protection, are fairly stated, from their past and prefent Tranfactions. By J. Shebbeare, M. D. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Hooper. 1774.

HE length of the title prefixed to the pamphlet before us, might almost be deemed a fufficient delineation of it, were there not many things in the work itself which are written with fo vehement and acrimonious a fpirit, that they cannot be permitted to pass entirely unnoticed. The first part

is employed by Dr. Shebbeare in a vindication of his private character and conduct, especially with regard to his delay in publishing a volume of the Hiftory of England, for which he had received fubfcriptions; and on this head, he has made an able and vigorous defence. Though he hath met with many bindrances, feveral of which appear to have been unavoidable, he defigns to fulfil his engagements; and we are told by him, that he does not intend to die till what he proposes be finished. · The Doctor proceeds next to the confideration of two fpeeches, delivered by Mr. Townshend and Mr. Lee, in which thofe gentlemen expreffed their difapprobation of his being penfioned by the government. For this offence, they are feverely attacked by our Author; and, indeed, he has not fcrupled to pour upon them the most plentiful abufe. The fcurrility to which he defcends, with refpect to Mr. Townfhend, is difgraceful to any writer of tolerable talents; and as to Mr. Lee, Dr. Shebbeare's pious and charitable wifh is, that his exit may be like that of Algernon Sidney.

Mr. Townshend happened to fay, in his speech, that he had himself a drop of the blood of Sidney in him. From this cireumftance, the Doctor has taken occafion to draw as malignant a character of Algernon Sydney as the hatred of liberty and public virtue could be fuppofed to infpire.

But the capital part of this tract is the comparison between the conduct of his prefent Majefty and that of King William the Third. The defign of the comparison is to exalt the polical administration of the prefent reign, and the private virtues of the King and Queen; and, at the fame time, to depreciate, without mercy, the public measures of King William, and t place his perfonal character, together with that of Queen Mary, in the moft odious point of view. Now, we cannot perceive what neceffity there was for the latter part of the Author's undertaking. Might he not have applauded the government of the reigning prince, and have difplayed the excellencies of both their prefent Majefties, without throwing abufe on their illuftrious predeceffors? But, perhaps, Dr. Shebbeare would have acted out of character, if, in writing on a political subject, he had not manifefted his attachment to arbitrary power, and his averfion to all the principles which paved the way for the Revolution.

With respect to his encomium on the King and Queen now upon the throne, no objection will be made. Their amiable qualities, and excellent virtues, will have justice done to them by men of all parties; whether they approve or condemn the particular measures of adminiftration. Neither fhall we criti cife on our Author's vindication of the political conduct of the prefent reign. He has alleged, and maintained with fpirit, the circumstances

circumftances which have commonly been urged in defence of that conduct. What he has advanced may be regarded, in fes veral refpects, as juft and important. In others, it is hoped a man may differ in opinion from Dr. Shebbeare, and yet not be guilty of difloyalty. Many perfons, without having any rebellious, or even factious intentions, may not only doubt of the wisdom and rectitude of certain fteps purfued by the miniftry, but abfolutely condemn them. By Dr. Shebbeare, however, any degree of oppofition is afcribed to the worst principles. It is ascribed to rebellion; and, what is ridiculous enough, the whole of it is attributed to the proteftant diffenters. For our parts, we did not understand that the diffenters were numerous or formidable enough to produce the great effects charged to their account by our Author; nor would he have advanced the charge, if truth alone had been his object in writing.

What is abfolutely inexcufable in the publication before us, and which, indeed, cannot be read without indignation, is, the illiberal and fcurrilous treatment of King William the Third. Surely Dr. Shebbeare could not hope to recommend himself to the present government, by wantonly calumniating a prince to whom we are indebted for the fettlement of the houfe of Hanover. At the fame time, the view which the Author has given, of the character and actions of King William, abounds with grofs mifreprefentations of history, and contains the most groundless and fhameful infinuations. This we affert with confidence; but it is impoffible here to enter into particu lars, the complete difcuffion of which would fill up a volume. Neither is it neceffary to vindicate all the tranfactions of King William. Like other princes, he had his faults, and fome of his political measures might be wrong. But ftill, he will always ftand juftly entitled to the gratitude and efteem of every friend to the liberties of mankind, and to the free conftitution of this country. Such a malignant attack upon him, as Dr. Shebbeare has made, can be accounted for on no other fuppofition than that of his entertaining an inveterate hatred to the doctrines on which the Revolution was founded.

Indeed this Writer, in one place, has faid, that James the Second, by fufpending and difpenfing with the laws; by endeavouring to obtain an abolition of the test act, and to admit papifts, prefbyterians, and other fectaries, into all offices, civil and military; by his attempts to introduce papifts into power in the univerfities of Oxford and Cambridge; by his bigotry, and defigns to fubvert the established church, and to increase arbitrary power, deferved to lofe his crown: that he was expelled the kingdom juftly; and that the Revolution was, therefore, a bleffing to the nation. But when the inconfiftency of this paffage with the general principles and spirit of the work REV. Jan. 1775.

D

is

1

is confidered, in what light can it be regarded but as a faving clause thrown in, perhaps, to avoid profecution; or, at least, as a mere accommodation to the prefent conftitution of govern ment? Certainly Dr. Shebbeare cannot now be looked upon as a Jacobite. His motives of converfion have been too powerful to be refifted. But if fentiments like his had been adhered to, King George the Third, to whofe munificence our Author is fo highly obliged, would never have adorned the throne of these realms.

The Doctor's principles are apparent, not only from his malignancy against King William and Queen Mary, but, likewife, from the evident partiality which he fhews to the papifts, and his prodigious animofity to all whigs and diffenters, without exception. The manner in which he speaks of the Reformation, would incline one to believe that, in his heart, he is little better than a Roman Catholic. We refer our Readers to pages 137, 8, 9, 140. 142, 3, 5, 6. and 176.

As to the diffenters, we do not recollect that any thing equally virulent against them was written, in the reigns of King Charles and King James the Second, even by the redoubted L'Eftrange. We cannot avoid giving one or two fpecimens. of our Author's charitable temper upon this fubject. Speaking of the prefbyterians and other fectaries, he fays, that to reproach their fovereign with lying affeverations, is infeparable from fuch men; fo intimately is the fpirit of fallehood amalga mated with the drofs of which they are compofed, that divide them as far as matter is divisible, and a lie fhall be found in every atom.' And in another place, he lefs rhetorically affures us, that, although the fame perfons fhall fuffer at the day of judgment for their tranfgreffions, yet, neither wisdom, nor chriftian patience ought to remit to that day of doom the punishment which they fo truly merit.'

We know not whether any diffenting writers will think this performance worthy of their notice. If they fhould, they will, we doubt not, be able fatisfactorily to prove, that the fame principles which led the diffenters to oppofe the Stuarts have rendered them eminently attached to the princes and the govern ment established by the Revolution; that, like other citizens, fome of them may queftion the propriety of certain public measures, without any juft impeachment of their integrity or loyalty; and that the afperfions cait on them by Dr. Shebbeare, are peculiarly groundlefs and malicious,

It would be endless to point out the inflaaces in which the Author hath justly laid himself open to fevere centure.

He feems to value himself not a little on the favourable terms in which the King fpoke of him to Sir John Philips, when that gentleman recommended him for a penfion. We can only say

upon

upon this head, that the very best princes are liable to be misled, in their opinions of men, and the communication of their favours. According to the Doctor's own obfervation, there is not a virtue of the human heart that may not, by artifice and deception, be induced to exceed its proper limits.

If it could be fuppofed that Dr. Shebbeare, in this work, hath expreffed the fentiments and language of government, a most important reafon of oppofition would indeed be afforded, and every lover of his country would have caufe to tremble. But we reject fuch a fuppofition, as totally unwarrantable: it is impoffible that any prince, or even any administration, under the Brunswick line, if lunacy hath not poffeffed them, can approve of the raving pofitions, and the bitter fpirit of this Writer. K.

ART. VII. A Letter to Dr. Shebbeare: Containing a Confutation of his Arguments concerning the Boston and Quebec Acts of Parliament; and his Afperfions upon the Memory of King William, and the Proteftant Diffenters. By Hugh Baillie, LL. D. late Judge of the Court of Admiralty in Ireland. 8vo. 2 s. J. Donaldfon. 1775.

WE

E learn, from fome paffages in the prefent publication, that the Author of it is very much advanced in years. It is probably owing to this circumftance, and perhaps to his not having been able to correct the mistakes of his amanuenfis, that we find certain errors in the compofition, which otherwife could fcarcely have proceeded from a man of a literary profeffion. Indeed, the work, in general, is not well written. Nevertheless, it contains a number of pertinent and judicious observations, in answer to Dr. Shebbeare. Dr. Baillie has obliged the Public with two anecdotes, which we shall lay before our Readers. The firft relates to the maffacre of Glenco.

I had occafion, fays our Author, to know the particulars of that ftory from Mr. Stewart of Appin, an enemy to King William, and to whom that land belonged. He told me the inhabitants of that glen were thieves and robbers; and that the King had fummoned them to lay down their arms, and furrender themselves at Inverary against a certain day, under the pain of military execution. They having failed to furrender, one Hamilton, an officer in the garrifon of Fort William, a man of a cruel temper, and having a quarrel with the poffeffor of the glen, vaffal to Stewart of Appin, he, under pretence of a warrant for military execution, committed that cruelty, and fled to Ireland. And Mr. Stewart told me, that nobody believed King William intended any fuch thing by the words military exe-.

cution.'

The fecond anecdote relates to Frederic Prince of Wales, father to his prefent Majefty. I spent good part of a winter, D 2

and