embargo on all Russian, Swedish, and Danish vessels in the British ports, of which several hundreds were actually seized and sequestered. So that, far froni harbouring any intention of resigning the government for the sake of effectuating the great object of peace, as some refining politicians dreamed, those daring and desperate ministers seemned rather inclined to extend and aggravate the horrors of this odious war to the utmost of their power, in order, if possible, to deter and affrighten others from undertaking the future conduct of it."

The whole conduct of Great Britain toward the northern powers, is recorded with spirited disapprobation: the first step toward a recovery of their friendship is to acknowledge the turbulence of our arrogance. Perhaps a little maritime, as well as diplomatic criticism, might have been hazarded on the battle of Copenhagen: it is said an earlier attack could have been made, with the advantage of an opposite wind, and a profounder knowledge of the soundings could have been obtained from the Hull and Yarmouth pilots who were on board the fleet. Seidelin's narrative ought to have been consulted as a corrective of the English accounts.

In the thirty-fifth chapter Mr. Belsham applauds the clergy-incapacitation act. Why is this state never to avail itself of the Wolseys, the Richlieus, the Ximenes, the Leo X., the Talleyrands, who may happen to originate among its clergy? Why is any specific form or grade of religion to disqualify from public office? Why are holy orders to be treated as a disgrace, and to debar a man from sitting among the representatives of his country? Above all, why is the character of priest rendered indelible, and made an infliction for life, even on those who renounce it? This bill is the creature of anile superstition, and proceeds on the supposition that it is sacrilege to secularize what has once been dedicated to God. Suppose it were necessary to bring in a bill for the repeal of the act of uniformity, it could not conveniently originate in the lower house, because there can be no clergy to overlook and criticize its provisions. The Commons have defrauded themselves of a power of legislating in church affairs. There was a time when Mr. Wyvill was the natural candidate for Yorkshire, and when popular gratitude ought to have placed him on the hustings. At all times the best orators among the clergy are the natural representatives for Oxford and Cambridge. But there's the rub. Persons high in power began to ap

prehend, it is said, clerical antagonism and an encroachment on the equality d the civil rights of the people of Great Br tain weighs nothing against a personal ac

commodation.

At page 322 Mr. Belsham a little step out of his course to comment the concord ate, or fundamental religious legislat 6 of the French. It is well known that th French policy concerning religion is ber rowed from that which the peace of West phalia legalized in Germany, and borrow ed for the purpose of facilitating Germa conquests. The privileges of establish ment are conceded to three distinct sects the Romish, the Lutheran, and the Cal vinist, and all others are in the eye of the law not even tolerated: thus a sort of se tarian trinity in unity becomes the excin sive religion of the state; and the same magistrate distributes the ecclesiastic preferment of the three rival parties. in the case of the protestant sovereignties a Germany this policy softened the animosities between the two protestant sects, and nearly melted them into one; Lat the catholics grew less numerous. case of the catholic sovereignty of France, we shall see the protestants grow less numerous. Indeed we already see the protestant prefects attending mass, and accepting incense at the hands of the catholic priesthood; and this occasional ccaformity is applauded by protestant ministers, who are candidates for the patronage of Bonaparte. It surprises us that Mr. Belsham should delight in the coestablishment of three sects, of which the unitarian is not one.

In the

In the XXXVIth Book Mr. Belsham narrates the peace of Amiens, and the debates upon it. Those who wished to keep the peace, of course, praised it on the whole; those who wished to break the peace, of course dispraised it: but it was so unskilfully made, that neither party was satisfied. Something might have been added to the parliamentary criticism of the measure. Instead of agreeing to evacuate Egypt, it would have been bet ter to dispose of it, and to dispose of it in favour of the French. The Cape, and Pondicherry, and New Orleans, and Mal ta too, would have been all abandoned readily to us: and the French would have had a colonial drain for men of sp rit and adventure; who, if pent up in European France, will constantly be overflowing contiguous departments, and strengthening their country by annexations where her strength is a nuisance.

From Egypt France cannot hurt our Hintostan; and with Egypt all her aggrandizement would tend southerly, where it is innocent, and not toward Holland, and the Weser, and the Elbe, where it is Carming indeed. It was the project of Leibnitz (See Annual Review, VOL. II. p. Suo), to give Egypt, the African Holland, to France, in order that she might spare the European Holland. In three generations more the ministers of Britain will perhaps attain to that degree of prospective wisdom, which the literary world possessed three generations ago. Too tten one is reminded of the truth of the Swedish chancellor Oxenstierna's remark, how little wisdom is made use of in governing the world, quam parvá sapientiá regitur mundus. A gross instance of statistical ignorance occurs in lord Hawkesbury's speech (p. 379): The ression of Louisiana by Spain, to France, was another ground of complaint. That province had originally been a French colony, having been ceded by France to Spain after the treaty of 1763. The vaIce of it at present was nearly nominal. As a naval station New Orleans was unimportant.' Here the value of Louisiana, which sold for several millions, is represented as merely nominal: and New Orleans is wrongly placed in Louisiana; and was of course erroneously supposed by Lais minister to have passed into the hands of the North Americans when they purchased that country: whereas the purchase of New Orleans was the subject of a subsequent treaty, which is probably contrary to the law of nations. New Orleans could have been asked for, in the negotiation of the peace, but was forgotten. And New Orleans, which is to the Missisippi what Alexandria is to the Nile; which must become the depository of the produce of all the interior of North America; which, by means of a canal into the bay Spirito Santo, can be made accessible for ships from the sea even during the overflowings of the river; which is likely to grow with the rapidity of Liverpool, and to outgrow it by all the difference between the Mersey and the Missouri; is held up as an unimportant place of shipping. No wonder that the island, on which New Orleans stands, was neither attacked during the war, nor treated for at the peace; although it begins to be already, what Trinidad cannot of a century become, the emporium of an inland commerce through well-watered provinces, where the arts of civilization, and the

wants of luxury, have struck root, and are growing. But however deficient lord Hawkesbury may have been in those geographical studies, which to a negotiator are indispensable, we cannot agree with Mr. Belsham in the censure past on his conduct (p. 395) respecting the French emigrants resident here. We do hold it for the king's dignity to protect entirely the obeyers of the laws; and should not murmur at a war undertaken to prevent the quondam lodgers in Holy-rood house from being turned out at the instigation of Bonaparte.

Mr. Belsham has displayed, in the accomplishment of his vast task, perseverance, sincerity, principle, a love of liberty, and an independence of character, of rare example. He may be considered as the bishop Burnet of the present age; as an historian of his own times, who possesses almost the same unaffectedness of manner, the same honesty of nature, pushed occasionally by whiggish warmth beyond the exact path of impartiality; who has perhaps less continental literature, but who has more fearlessness of power, and a purer indifference to patronage.

Had Mr. Belsham's history been dedicated to the prince of Wales, he might aptly have repeated the words of Tindal's celebrated address. Here then, as from a faithful monitor, uninfluenced by hopes or fears, your royal highness will learn, in general, that to a prince nothing is so pernicious as flattery, nothing so valuable as truth; that proportionate to his people's liberty and happiness, will be his glory and strength; that true valour consists not in destroying, but in protecting mankind; not in conquering kingdoms, but defending them from violence; that a prince's most secret counsels, motives, and pursuits, will probably one day be published and rigorously judged; and, however flattered while living, yet, when dead, he will be treated as his actions have deserved, with honour or reproach, with veneration or contempt. But above all, you will here see the nature of our excellent constitution, where the prerogatives of the crown and the privileges of the subject are so happily proportioned, that the king and the people are inseparably united in the same interests. Accordingly you will here constantly find, that in the reigns where this union was cultivated, the kingdom flourished, and the prince was glorious, powerful, trusted, beloved; on the contrary, when by an arbitrary disposition or evil gounsels, it

and spirit of the fight, in their descriptions of an engagement. But nothing can be more clear and satisfactory than the whole detail of ilitary transactions which we find in this contest. Whether the march or the retreat, the attack or the defence, the encampment or the battle, every thing is drawn with accuracy and precision, in great detail, but without any g tedious. In these particulars, Polybius wil be scarcely thought to exceed him.

It must be observed likewise to his honour, that there reigns through the whole work an air of disinterestedness, and of free com-from all passion and prejudice, public or private. The Frenchiman who acts gallantly or wisely, finds as much justice done to his actions and his conduct, as any of the author's Countrymen. The same impartiality seems to have been observed with regard to all percal connections. This volume does not cary the war further than 1755.”

Mr. Orme was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in March 1770: and was soon after appointed historiographer to the India Company, with a salary of four hundred pounds yearly. He visited France a second time in the spring of 1773, and was introduced to general Pussy; who expressed his satisfaction at He justice done by Mr. Orme to the French officers, invited him to his villa, and communicated some maps and other corrective documents, of which Mr. Orme availed himself in the second edition of his book, which appeared in the following summer. Two years later, in 1775, an appendix, containing several notes and an index, was issued in addition to the first volume: the second volume was published in October 1778. In 1785 a third edition became requisite, and Mr. Orme undertook to prepare notes and an index to the second volume similar to those which had been annexed to the first; but the declining state of his health interrupted the progress of this toil.

In 1782 Mr. Orme gave to the press Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire, of the Morattoes, and of the English Concerns in Hindostan, from the year 1659. This laborious work had been in preparation long: it was intended to assume a completer form; but a marked decay of vigour and a disinclination for study occasioned an abandonment of the pursuit of higher perfection.

Mr. Orme's debility was of that kind which British constitutions often incur from the effects of the climate of Hindostan: it did not unfit him for lively participation in the pleasures of society, or in the incidents of public affairs. He possessed and indulged the accomplishments

of the luxurious world. He listened frequently to music; he visited and criticized the exhibitions of painters and the galleries of art; he prized the pleasures of the table, and the conversations of the literate; he composed verses, his address to the moon and the accompanying melody still remain engraven in our song-books. He exchanged the atmosphere of London for that of Ealing in 1792, and only came to Harley-street during a month or two of the winter: he sold the city-house in 1796. At Ealing he died, in January 1801, in the seventy-third year of his age; and bequeathed to the India Company those parts of his library, chiefly manuscript, which related to the history, the literature, and the affairs, of the East. Anquetil du Perron, who was a judge both of the oriental and of the European acquirements and information of Mr. Orme, characterizes him as eruditissimus et veritatis amantissimus India historiographus. (See the Oup'nechat, vol. ii. p. 755.)

The rank of Orme among our historians is not well ascertained or universally agreed: he is seldom mentioned as the rival, still less as the surpasser, of Robertson: yet we suspect that an impartial inquiry into the relative merits of these two writers would terminate in awarding the preference to the native of Travancore.

Gibbon is the greatest of our historians: for appropriate learning and research; for judgment and sagacity in the conciliation of testimony, and in the approbation of character; for force of thought and stateliness of diction; he is alike admirable: the fault of his matter is the disproportion of the parts, of his style to narrate in abstractions.

The second rank must be conceded to Hume. The author of a dissertation on the literary history of Scotland, prefixed to some recent lives of the Scottish poets, has thought fit (p. 167) to attempt the degradation of Hume below Robertson, with a zeal more honourable to his christian than to his critical orthodoxy. Of Robertson's high merit we are amply convinced his best history however is that of Charles V.: great part of the work respects the affairs of the Germans; yet he does not appear to have consulted a single one of their native vernacular writers on the subject of these affairs. He is deficient therefore in the first quality of an historian, research. In Thucydides, in Tacitus, in Machiavelli, one admires a strength of mind, an energy of intellect, a thinking force, which sometimes reveals

itself in their burning words, sometimes in the sharpness of their personal characterizations, sometimes in the depth of their moral and political inferences and reflections. But who can find up in his common-place book a single striking maxim extracted from the writings of Robertson? In what are our statesmen the wiser for his narration? By the facts alone. He is deficient then in a second desirable quality of the historian, which might not unaptly be termed thoughtfulness.

Hume also wants research. The History of the House of Tudor was his first and his best historic effort: that of the House of Stuart is partial, and not sifted his Ancient History of England is notoriously inferior to that of Milton. But Hume displays the thinker, exercises the philosopher, and instructs the statesman. Robertson's whole knowledge seems confined to his topic; Hume's to embrace every other yet Hume is then most excellent, when he draws not from without, but from within. The style of Robertson is plain, not always clear, though often picturesque. The style of Hume is tame, but beautiful; it is far superior for purity, euphony, precision, and selection of ornament, to that of Addison, whom he imitated: it is the transparent garb of ideas shapen with the chisel of a master.

Without the strength of mind or the classical learning of Gibbon and of Hume, Mr. Orme excels the former in the proportion and disposition of his matter, and the latter in inquiry and fidelity. His preliminary dissertation has been compared and preferred to the introductory book of Thucydides; to whom he is only inferior in not decorating his speeches and narrations with the inferences of a sententious wisdom. Orme is a more instructive historian than Robertson: practical men can rely on the one, not on the other. Compare the siege of Pondicherry at the close of the first book of Orme, with the siege of Metz in the eleventh book of Robertson: a military man will better know how to invest Pondicherry in future from Orme's account; but nobody can learn from Robertson how to defend or attack Metz. The use of history is to preserve the lessons of experience.

In the characterization of individuals, Orme draws his inferences from facts and observations, not from the balance of testimony: but Robertson leans wholly on the accident of testimony; and, sooner than miss an opportunity of drawing a parade character, he gives a fictitious importance

to insignificant men. Thus for pope M. cellus II. he provides as pompous a par gyric, as if this old man had been elect for his efficacy, and not for his decrepitud The character of Luther, again, is a me repetition, and a very tedious one, of e clesiastical puffs; his low buffoonery, a his insincere use of vulgar credulity, in a serting the apparition of the devil, and professing to receive the Apocalypse art having denied its canonicity, when found it could be employed as a tool agam the church of Rome, are suppressed, r dishonestly, by Robertson, but from i norance of facts, which he seldom looks for at the source. How superior is Orme character of Dupleix, (book v. year 1754 where the grounds of every panegyric an recorded, and the most exemplary and es quisite justice is shewn to an enem Örme is superior to national prejudic Robertson, imbued even with sectaria Orme contents himself with noticing w is peculiar; Robertson prolongs his delir ation with scholastic phrases, of unive: applicability. Orme paints from natureRobertson from books: Orme with th precision of portraiture-Robertson wi the vague distortion of the rhetoricia: Orme has too great a crowd-Robertset too thin a groupe of agents. Orme owe our neglect to the strangeness of his par sonages-Robertson our favour to the c lebrity of his. Orme is growing on o interest with the empire whose origins sketched-Robertson is fading on our in terest with the dissolution of the religio and political parties which he described but did not dare to criticise. Orme he the raciness, and foliage, and verdure, c living history, sprung up among the mer and on the spot-Robertson the seard vested stateliness of the monument. trophy.

Qualis frugifero quercus sublimis in agro Exuvias veteres populi, sacrataque gestars Dona ducum: nec jam validis radicitus hærens,

Pondere fixa suo est, nudosque per aera

ramos

Effundens, trunco, non frondibus, efficit umbram.

The works collected in this volume form an essential appendix to Orme's History of the Military Transactions of the Britis Nation in Hindostan. They consist the Historical Fragments of the Mor Empire, first published in 1782; and d three posthumous publications, draw ng on specific occasions; namely, 1st, Orą i