knowledged by all who are true friends to the Proteftant cause, and who believe that a zeal for religious truth, and the preservation of religious integrity, are commendable qualities. In Mr. Hume's Hiftory of King Charles the Firft, our Author finds much scope for obfervation. What he particularly enlarges upon, is the conduct of the earl of Strafford, which was, according to Mr. Hume, making allowance for human infirmities, innocent, and even laudable. Mr. Towers, on the other hand, after reciting fome of the depofitions against lord Strafford at his trial, fees reafon for introducing the following spirited remarks: Upon the whole, it is unquestionably certain, that the conduct of Strafford was fo far from being either innocent or laudable, that it was in a very high degree criminal, and that he was a juft object of national indignation, and of public profecution. As lord prefident of the North, as lord lieutenant of Ireland, and as a privy-counfellor in England, he had laboured to trample on the rights of the people. and had been guilty of acts of great injustice and opprefHon. That he defended himfelf with great eloquence and addrefs, and that he applied, with great art, to the paffions of his auditors, is very true; but all this proves nothing as to his general innocence of the charges that were brought against him: and there is furely little reafon for the affertion of Mr. Hume, that "though his death was loudly demanded as a fatisfaction to justice, and an atonement for the many violations of the conftitution; it may fafely be affirmed, that the fentence, by which he fell, was an enormity greater than the worst of those which his implacable enemies profecuted with fo much cruel industry." • Whether all the proceedings againft Strafford, and his final fentence, were in every refpect ftrictly legal, I fhall not take upon me to determine. The law, perhaps, may not have made the fame provifion for bringing iniquitous minifters of flate to juftice, that it has for inferior criminals. But however this be, it is certain, that Strafford did not fall undeservedly; and that there is very little reafon for those pathetic lamentations that are thrown out upon this fubject by Mr. Hume. If Strafford had not been guilty of treafon against the perfon of Charles, he had been guilty of treafon against the rights of the people and if this be a fpecies of treafon not yet to be found in our ftatute-books, it is high time that it fhould find a place there. Of all public crimes, attempts to fubvert the rights of the people, and to overturn a free conftitution, are the greateft, and ought to be the most severely punished. The idea that the perfonal fecurity of the king is of more confequence, than the prefervation of the rights and privileges of a whole nation, can arife only from the most contemptible fervility.' Our Author goes on to recite, from the earl of Strafford's letters and dispatches, several striking teftimonies of his pernicious and defpotic views, from which it may be concluded, that he was a most dangerous and arbitrary Minifter; that he riolated himself every principle of a free conftitution; that he C 4 gave gave the worst advice to the King; and that he well deserved the fate he met with. It is fhewn, likewife, that the inclinations of archbishop Laud agreed with thofe of Strafford; and that they were both equally difgufted with the reftraints of law. With regard to Mr. Hume's account, in general, of the reign of King Charles the First, it may be confidered, Mr. Towers thinks, rather as a fpecious and artful apology for that Prince's conduct, than a just hiftory. In fome refpects, it is more partial than the celebrated hiftory of Lord Clarendon, though that nobleman was an avowed partizan of Charles. But this feems to have been neceffary, in order to enable Mr. Hume to fupport his favourite hypothefis. And with respect to lord Clarendon, it appears to have been a fentiment never entertained by him, that the Government of England was little better than defpotic at the acceffion of the Houfe of Stuart. This was a discovery for which we are indebted to the acuteness of more modern writers.' In the latter end of the prefent Publication, our Author pleads, with a becoming fpirit, the cause of fome of the most celebrated English geniufles, fuch as Spenfer, Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Boyle, and Newton, whofe reputation Mr. Hume feems ftudious to leffen But for Mr. Towers's obfervations on this head, and for many other remarks that are well deferving of notice, we must refer our readers to the tract at length; which contains no fmall degree of inftruction and entertainment. It is an act of justice to our fenfible Writer to mention, that he intermixes proper encomiums with his cenfures of Mr. Hume He acknowledges that his Hiftory of England may be read with confiderable advantage, if it be read with caution; that, independently of its merit as a compofition, much real information, and many remarks, equally juft and acute, are to be found in it; and that it affords fundry paffages highly favourable to the general interefts of liberty, and the common rights of mankind. But, at the fame time, Mr. Towers is obliged to come to these conclufions: That whatever commendation may be due to Mr. Hume as an ingenious, elegant, and polifhed writer, he is not entitled to equal praife as an exact, faithful, and impartial hiftorian: That his Work is by na means a proper book to be put into the hands of British youth, in order to give them juft ideas of the English conftitution: And that we must have recourfe to other fources of information, if we would obtain an accurate knowledge of the Hiftory of England; if we would form right conceptions of the most remarkable tranfactions and characters which occur in the annals of this Country, That That Mr. Towers is not fingular in these fentiments, wil be apparent from the teftimony of an author of great ability and merit, and whose deep knowledge of the fubject cannot justly be difputed. We mean Dr. Gilbert Stuart, who, in his View of Society in Europe (p. 327, 328.), has the following paffage; with which we fhall conclude this Article. "To give completeness to the spirit of my present volume, it is fufficient for me to affert the antiquity of the commons, in oppofition to an opinion of their late rife, which a modern hiftorian, of great reputation, has inculcated, with that hardiness which he difplays in all his writings, but with little of that power of thought and of reafoning which does honour to his philofophical works. Mr. Hume, ftruck with the talents of Dr. Brady, deceived by his ability, difpofed to pay adulation to government, or willing to profit by a fyftem, formed with art, and ready for adoption, has executed his history upon the tenets of this writer. Yet, of Dr. Brady it ought to be remembered, that he was the flave of a faction, and that he meanly prostituted an excellent understanding, and admirable quicknefs, to vindicate tyranny, and to destroy the rights of his nation. lefs pertinacity, but with an air of greater candour, and with the marks of a more liberal mind, Mr. Hume has employed himself to the fame purposes; and his hiftory, from its beginning to its conclufion, is chiefly to be regarded as a plaufible defence of prerogative. As an elegant and a fpirited compofition, it merits every commendation. But no friend to humanity, and to the freedom of this kingdom, will confider his conftitutional inquiries, with their effect on his narrative, and compare them with the ancient and venerable monuments of our story, without feeling a lively surprise, and a patriotic indignat on." With no ART. IV. Leffons for Children from tavo to three Years old. T HE firft of thefe diminutive volumes, is introduced by This little Publication was made for a particular child, but the public is welcome to the use of it. It was found, that amidft the multitude of books profeffedly written for children, there is not one adapted to the comprehenfion of a child from two to three years old. A grave remark, or a connected ftory, however fimple, is above his capacity; and nonfenfe is always below it; for folly is worse than ignorance. Another great defect is, the want of good paper, a clear and large type, and large spaces. They only who have actually taught young children can be fenfible how neceffary thefe affiftances are. The eye of a child and of a learner cannot catch, as ours can, a fmall, obfcure, ill-formed word, amidft a number of others all equally unknown to him.- To fupply thefe deficiencies is the object of this book. The talk is humble, but not mean; K. for to lay the firft ftone of a noble building, and to plant the first idea in a human mind, can be no difhonour to any hand.” It is pretty well known, tho' the Author's name does not appear to the work, that the rifing generation are indebted to a lady of diftinguished merit and genius, for thefe elementary leffons: and all who duly confider the fhortnefs of life, and the variety and quantity of knowledge now become neceffary to those who would pass through it honourably and usefully, cannot fail to be fenfible of the importance of expending as little time as poffible in the acquifition of it; and efpecially of abridging that portion of time which is moft extravagantly wafted upon the knowledge of words. Wife men have always lamented this unhappy lofs,-and many laudable, though few fuccefsful, attempts have been made to remedy it. That enterprifing fpirit Comenius did much :he gave a Nomenclator and View of the principal Things and Actions in the Univerfe, in his Orbis fenfualium Pictus, and arranged the fubjects methodically;-by means of which book, in learning a language, a very extenfive knowledge of nature must also unavoidably be acquired. This method was calculated to fave time, that precious ftuff of which life is made: and if the philofophy of this book was accommodated to the prefent improved state of knowledge, and diftinct plates were given, even well-executed wooden cuts, of the principal parts of the vifible world, its value and utility would be greatly improved. The little volumes before us are written with the fame laud ́able view, and are calculated to fave time; not only by fimple leffons confifting chiefly of familiar and fimple ideas, but by printing them in fo large a type as to enable children of two or three years old, to fix their wandering eyes fteadily upon the feparate words, which it is fcarcely poffible for them to do when letters are finall, and the books not well printed. When the leffons are judiciously accommodated, like these, to the experience and capacity of children; when the words chiefly ftand for vifible objects that furround the little scholars in the nursery, the parlour, the garden, &c.- they perceive words and founds have fome meaning;-they understand what they read; they find books tell pretty ftories concerning things of which they have fome knowledge; and their little smiling faces and dimpled cheeks thew their minds are delighted while they read. Thank you a thousand times, fay the Mafters and Miffes, good Mrs. Barbauld, for making fuch pretty little books;pray go on and make us a great many more, and defire Mr. Johnson to put fome pretty pictures into them. Opinions are much divided about the age at which children fhould be taught to read :-with fuch books as these before us, we we do not doubt but hey may very properly begin at two or three years of age;-with fuch books as are generally used for this purpose, it is a hard and irksome task, at five or fix; because they have ideas to few of the words, and have no entertainment in reading. Senfible objects are the firft materials of science; and he who knows how to call many things by their proper names, has made no small progress in knowledge.-Much of this elementary knowledge may be acquired, even in infancy, without fatigue, and without abridgment of the neceffary play and exercise :and we apprehend the difcredit that has been thrown upon early inftruction has been occafioned by the very abfurd method of ftuffing children's heads with words that ftand for complex or abstract ideas, before they acquire the fimple ideas, of which the others are compounded, and from the comparison of which the abftract ideas are formed. As if a mafter of arithmetic fhould make his fcholars commit to memory the totals or refults of each operation, without either teaching them the nature of the figures, or how to go through the operations, by which the conclufions were produced. A child who has properly learnt at fix years of age, what another only begins at that time to learn, will probably preferve this advantage through life, and will have leifure to learn more before the business of the world puts a stop to the progress of his ftudies, than the other can ever have leifure to acquire but parents or inftructors fhould always remember that words without ideas, are not learning, but lumber; refembling certain troublesome weeds which we can turn to no ufe, and with difficulty extirpate, Though we admire the fimplicity of the language, and generally approve the fubjects, fentiments, and defcriptions in these leffons, as calculated to entertain, to excite good difpofitions, and occafionally to convey useful knowledge; yet we have obferved a few places in which the Author has not been fo careful as we think the ought to have been, in guarding against expreffions that to little children must convey falfe ideas, or be mifunderftood. We have one inftance in the following paffage. There was a naughty boy, I do not know what his name was, but it was not Charles, nor George, nor Arthur, for those are all very pretty names: but there was a Robin came in at the window, &c.' This paffage conveys an opinion that there is fome relation between a pretty name and a good boy;-which not being true, we hope Mrs. B. will correct it in the next edition. The leffon in the 75th page of the fecond volume, we also think exceptionable. The moral would have been as complete if the fabulous licence of making infects, birds, and beafts speak |