assistance of the younger members of the Scottish bar and of the ladies of Edinburgh. "There is nothing," he says, in a letter to his intimate friend Dr. Clephane, then a physician in London, "since the rebellion (1745), that ever so much drew the attention of this town, except Provost Stuart's trial: and there is scarce a man whose friendship or acquaintance I could desire, who has not given me undoubted proofs of his concern and regard." His adversary was Mr. Kenneth Mackenzie, professor of civil law in the University of Edinburgh.

Although the salary of the office which he thus obtained was inconsiderable, the situation for a literary man was very desirable. He thus had constant and easy access to an excellent library. This induced him to undertake a work which he thought much wanted, a classical history of England; but he was afraid of attempting it on so extensive a scale as to begin at the earliest period, and continue it for seventeen centuries; and he therefore confined himself at first to the Stuarts, commencing with the accession of James I., and closing with the expulsion of his grandson James II., at the revolution of 1688. This work made two volumes, of which one was published in 1754, and another in 1756. He entertained a sanguine expectation that his first volume, containing the reigns of James I. and Charles I., would have met with a favourable reception; and we find the grounds of his confidence stated in one of his letters to Dr. Clephane. His election was in February, 1752, and in the following January he must have made great progress; for he thus describes his having already consulted his friends upon his performance :-"As there is no happiness," he says, "without occupation, I have begun a work which will employ me several years,

It is singular that a contest and a victory which once so much occupied him, and which he regarded as the battle and the triumph of his free opinions over bigotry, is not even glanced at in his 'Life' of himself.

and which yields me much satisfaction. "Tis a history of Britain, from the union of the crowns to the present time. I have already printed the reign of King James. My friends flatter me (by this I mean that they do not flatter me) that I have succeeded. You know that there is no path of honour on the English Parnassus more vacant than that of history. Style, judgment, impartiality, ease, every thing is wanting to our historians; and even Rapin, during his latter period, is extremely deficient. I make my work very concise, after the manner of the ancients. It divides into three very moderate volumes-one to end with the death of Charles I., the second at the Revolution, the third at the Accession, 1714; for I dare come no nearer the present times. The work will neither please the Duke of Bedford nor James Frazer, but I hope it will please you and posterity."-"I was, I own, he says in his account of his life, "sanguine in my expectations of the success of this work. I thought I was the only historian that had at once neglected present power, interest, and authority, and the cry of popular prejudices; and as the subject was suited to my capacity, I expected proportionate

success.'

But whatever might be the want of such a work, and how much soever he relied on his superior qualifications for the task, he was doomed to a bitter disappointment. "I was assaulted," says he, "by one cry of reproach, disapprobation, and even detestation. English, Scotch, and Irish, Whig and Tory, churchman and sectary, freethinker and religionist, patriot and courtier, united against the man who had presumed to shed a generous tear for the fate of Charles I. and the Earl of Strafford." But the singularity of the case, and the great mortification of the author, was this that with this universal clamour, all the storm did not save him from neglect; it subsided as quickly as it had been raised, and the 'History' sunk into ob

livion. In a year's time, only five and forty copies were sold, at least in London; and although he tells us in another letter, that "at Edinburgh no book was ever more bought, or furnished more subject of conversation," yet in London it was otherwise. The author's discouragement was great; he was disgusted with belonging to a country so subject to the tyranny of faction and the clamours of the mob, while it boasted so constantly, and blustered so loudly, about its liberties: he even entertained serious thoughts of leaving it for ever, changing his name, and passing the rest of his days in some French provincial town, far from those braggarts and intolerant brawlers. Nor does he appear to have been deterred from this project, excepting by the obstacles to its execution which the war, breaking out immediately after, interposed. The only encouragement which he received under his disappointment was from the two Primates, Herring and Stone, who approved of the book, and sent him messages, bidding him not to be cast down by the temporary failure.

During the interval between the first and second volume appeared his Natural History of Religion,' which so far attracted notice, that Bishop Hurd wrote an answer to it; and about as elegantly feeble as might be expected from that moderate prelate, unless that some part of it came from the more haughty and vigorous pen of his patron Warburton, and redeemed the tract from the imputation of candour, toleration, and temper. The second volume of the 'Stuarts' "happened to give less offence to the Whigs than the first," he says, "and being therefore somewhat better received, helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother." Three years after he published the 'House of Tudor,' which containing his account of ecclesiastical matters in Elizabeth's reign, and of Queen Mary's conduct, revived the clamour raised against the first volume, and, like that, was soon neglected and forgotten. In

1761 he finished the work by publishing the two volumes containing the earlier history: "they had," he says, "tolerable, and but tolerable success." It is, however, also stated by him, as an indication of growing popularity, that all the clamour and all the neglect did not prevent the booksellers from giving him more money when they purchased the copyrights than had ever before been paid in England; so that, with his sober habits and moderate desires, he was become not only independent, but opulent. It is to be observed that, for his History of Scotland,' Dr. Robertson had only received 6007, the publishers having cleared 6000l. For Charles V.' he received 3,600%, and for 'America' 2,4007. (being in the same proportion), while, no doubt, 50,000l. at the least must have been realised by those works.

In considering the merits of the History of England,' we must first of all observe upon the great difference which appears between the pains bestowed upon this celebrated work and those which the rival historian was wont to bestow upon his writings. Dr. Robertson's 'Scotland,' consisting of about a volume and a half (for the rest of the second volume is composed of original documents printed as an appendix), occupied his almost undivided attention for above six years. Hume's first volume could not have been the work of above a year or fifteen months; for it was begun when he went to the Advocates' Library early in 1752, and it was published in 1754. The second volume succeeded in 1756, but he had written half of it when the first was published; and in 1755 there appeared also his 'Natural History of Religion.' Consequently we are positively certain that he wrote more

* Though by his letter to Lord Hailes he seems only to have begun it in 1752, yet I have heard his eldest sister often say that he had a whole room full of books to read or consult for some time before at Gladsmuir, where she lived with him, and which she quitted on her marriage before 1750.

of his History' in less than two years than Dr. Robertson wrote of his in above six; and that his whole 'History of the Stuarts' could not have taken above three years to prepare and to write. It is impossible to doubt that this mode of writing history must leave no room for a full investigation of facts and weighing of authorities. He had no right to number "care" among the items of superiority to his predecessors, upon which he had plumed himself in his letter to Dr. Clephane. The transactions of James's time comprised perhaps the most important period of our constitutional history, because the struggle between the Crown and the Commons then began, and occupied the greater part of his reign. It was impossible to examine the period too closely, or in too minute detail. The struggle continued in Charles's time, and ended in the quarrel between the King and the people, in the usurpations of the Parliament, and in the overthrow of the Monarchy. The Commonwealth then followed, and the Cromwell usurpation. Now there is hardly one passage in all this history, from 1600 to 1650, which is not the subject of vehement controversy among parties of conflicting principles, and among inquiring men of various opinions; yet all this was examined by Mr. Hume in less than two years, and his history of it was actually composed, as well as his materials collected and his authorities investigated and compared and weighed, within that short period of time. No one can be surprised if, in so short a time allotted to the whole work, far more attention was given to the composition of the narrative than to the preparation of the materials. It was altogether impossible that, in so short a period, the duty of the historian should be diligently performed. The execution of the work answers to the mode of its performance.

But if the History' be not diligently prepared, is it faithfully written? There are numberless proofs of