to kings and conquefts, towards the study of men and manners, The propriety of this plan was recognised as foon as it was known; and he has been followed, as far as their talents would permit, by many hiftorical writers. From the fame fource we derive many excellent political treatifes, in which the paffions and prejudices of mankind have been regarded as of no less weight in human affairs than their judgment and reafon.

But while we thus do juftice to the memory of Voltaire, we muft regret that fo many of his imitators have copied his faults without afpiring to imitate his beauties. Hurried forward by the powerful influences of a too lively imagination, he has not been able to investigate hiftoric truth with fufficient pains and accuracy; and others, without the fame plea in their favour, have been as bold in their affertions, and as adventurous in their conjectures. Endowed with great talents, but defective in the powers of imagination, and deftitute of the finer feelings of the heart, Hume has written a moft entertaining hiftory, in which the pictures are bold and animated. They feem copied from Nature herfelf-but unfortunately those who beft know the original are most fenfible of the defects of the copy. Robertson poffeffes ftill a finer pencil, and more gaudy colouring: the Titian of hiftory, his pictures appear life itself. They are enchantingly beautiful; but he has not always obferved the coufume with due attention. Great names are fufficient to miflead the world; and it requires uncommon refolution to oppose opinions maintained by fuch diftinguished writers. But this refolution has appeared. Whitaker, ftill more addicted to his own system, more bold in his affertions, and equally sparing of proofs, has fhaken and overturned fome of the bafelefs hypothefes of Hume; and the Author of the present work has been equally fuccefsful in pointing out feveral errors in Dr. Robertfon's Hiftory of Scotland.

Dr. Stuart profeffes to investigate a fubject that has hitherto been involved in great obfcurity: the conftitutional history of Scotland, Few are the authors who have treated of the antiquities of that country; and among thefe few, not any one has adopted a plan by which it was poffible to remove that thick cloud in which they are fo deeply involved. Deftitute of records, and acquainted only in part by accidental notices with the existence or the name of certain inftitutions, it seemed impoffible to give any connected detail of the origin and nature of what was fo obfcurely pointed out in ancient records. Hence every author thought himself at liberty to give fuch an expla nation of these matters, as ftruck his fancy at the time of writing; nor was it eafy for ordinary readers to perceive the leaft degree of fallacy in his performance. Succeeding authors, however, happened by accident to discover several particulars

which did not accord with other obfcure notices that had come to their knowledge; on which account the former opinions were refuted, and others equally untenable were adopted in their ftead. In this way the hiftory of that country became little elfe than a scene of controverfy; and in this hopeless uncertainty every reader was left to find his way, in the best manner he could, without being able to fee any profpect of that repose of mind which results from entire conviction in the truth of facts. that have been preserved upon record.

We do not say that Dr. Stuart has entirely removed that uncertainty fo long complained of, but we think he has adopted a plan, which, if adhered to by others lefs addicted to thofe violent prejudices which perhaps take their rife from too much quickness of parts, bids fair, at length, to remove the doubtful mist that hangs over the Scottish antiquities. The method which he has adopted was practifed by the great Montefquieu, and has: been almost entirely neglected fince his time. It confifts in having recourse to laws inftead of hiftorical records, as these much more faithfully exhibit a picture of the evils they were intended to remove, than even a hiftory, were we poffeffed of it,, could poffibly do; for the one is only the reasoning of an indi vidual, the other fhews the opinion of the whole legislative body. By the help of these laws, and that general analogy prevailing in the civil inftitutions of all thofe kingdoms that were formed in Europe by the Northern Barbarians who deftroyed the Roman empire, our Author has been enabled to trace the gradual, changes that neceffarily took place in the conftitution of the country, and the opinions and manners of the people, from a change of circumftances in the individuals of which the ftate is compofed, and in this way to give a clear and fatisfactory account of the nature and origin of many orders of the body politic which have not hitherto been fully explained. Those who think that the rules of government are in a great measure accidental, being little else than the contrivances gradually adopted by bodies of men to ward off thofe evils to which they feel themfelves expofed, will be well pleafed with the diftinct and connected detail of the gradual changes of the manners of the people, and of the public law and conftitution of Scotland, which they will find in the prefent performance.

In a former work* Dr. Stuart paved the way for the prefent; for this is little elfe than a defcription of the particular variations adopted by a feparate tribe of that great nation, of whofe government and manners the former volume traced the general outlines. The most striking peculiarity in the ancient German

A View of Society in Europe, in its Progrefs from Rudeness to Refinement. See our Review, vol. lviii. p. 189. T 4

tribes,

tribes, while they ftill inhabited their native woods, was, that their lands never belonged to individuals, but were cultivated by the people at large, and afterwards a portion of that cultivated land was allotted by the ftate to each individual, according to his rank and dignity; but after the crop was reaped, the property returned, as before, to the whole tribe.

Dr. Stuart, we obferve, has not thought it neceffary to explain in what manner men in that rude ftate of fociety came to differ from one another in dignity: yet to us who are accustomed. to connect the idea of dignity with the extent of property, it is not quite evident, at firft fight, what can be meant by different degrees of dignity where poffeffions are not hereditary; and even where they are granted for one year only. This may appear to fome readers an omiffion in the work of our Author, because, without forming a proper judgment of this matter, we must have an imperfect idea of that beautiful fyftem of liberty which has naturally flowed from the German manners.

In a ftate of nature, all mankind are born with an equal claim to diftinction. One infant is equally helpless with another, and has an equal demand on the attention of its parents and thofe around it. But this ftate of perfect equality among individuals cannot poffibly exift but for a very short period. A fuperior degree of strength, activity, or genius, quickly exalts one boy above his equals, who perceiving this fuperiority, tacitly, and without reluctance, acknowledge it, and pay a willing obedience to those whom heaven seems to have destined to govern them. This obedience, however, is not only perfonal but temporary. The chief is no longer entitled to the first rank, than while he excels in those endowments that are in the highest degree of eftimation among the individuals of the tribe which he commands; and as foon as another is found who excels him, he, muft occupy only the fecond place. In this way it happens, that in every ftate of civil fociety there must be perfons placed in different degrees of rank, although there fhould be no permanent property in goods. Such moft cetainly were the dignified perfonages among the Germans in their woods: fuch were the dignitaries among the warlike tribes of South America *, and fuch at this day are the chiefs of the favage nations in North America. Evident traces of the fame fyftem are feen in the writings of Homer, and in every other account of a people nearly approaching to the infancy of fociety. The community at large, to whom belongs all property, affigns to each individual that fhare of provisions or of spoils to which he is entitled

* See L'Auraueana, a Spanish poem, by Don Alonfo D'Ercilla, in which the ceremony of choofing a chief to lead the army is described, according to these ideas, with great strength of colouring.

by

by his merit. The chief therefore, whofe talents are of the moft dazzling kind, will be rich and powerful; but it by no means follows that his fucceffor fhall enjoy an equal degree of riches or power, because he may be deftitute of the talents and accomplishments by which thefe advantages are attained. Our fcanty limits do not permit us to purfue this idea farther; but the ingenious Reader will eafily perceive its powerful influence on the moral and political principles of all rude nations.

With this notion of equality and fubordination our predeceffors iffued from their woods, and over-ran those fertile provinces of Europe which were under the more civilized government of the Romans. Dignities of all kinds were for some time entirely perfonal, and property was granted only for the fhort fpace of one year; but becoming acquainted with the luxuries' of life, individuals loath to quit their habitations, and defirous of cultivating their fields, began to perceive the meaning of the word property; and the grants, inftead of being bestowed annually, came to be given firft for life, and afterwards in per petuity; every inhabitant being obliged to defend the poffeffions of the ftate against every invader.

The Germans, in their woods, cultivated only as much land) as was judged fufficient for the fupport of the whole community, which was afterwards divided among the individuals according to their dignity; all the other lands being the property of the ftate. In the fame manner, after their emigrations, a portion of land was allotted to every individual, according to his dignity; and all the remaining territories belonged immediately to the state. These reserved territories were under the immediate direction of the chief magiftrate, and became in time a fource of new power to him, being by him granted away, under certain restrictions, to such as he chose to favour. Thele came afterward to be called fiefs, in contradiftinction to the former lands which were denominated allodial.

Having premised these great outlines of the nature and origin of government in modern Europe, we proceed to give a brief analysis of the work before us.

In the first chapter Dr. Stuart reprobates the idea of Scot land having adopted the feudal laws by imitation from any other country:

• Wherever feudality, he justly obferves, was to flourish, it was to grow from the root. The tree could not be carried to a foreign foil. Its native earth could alone preferve it in existence, and give the aliment that was to make it rife into height, and fhoot into branches.

Scotland was a feudal kingdom; and we can point pretty exactly to the time when fiefs were hereditary there. Now, in that form, they could not be imported by any of its princes; and, it is evident, that no conquering nation, advanced to the practice of fiefs in this

degree,

degree, made a conqueft and establishment in Scotland. In confequence, therefore, of a natural progrefs, fiefs muft have grown to this condition of refinement. And, before fiefs were hereditary, they were for a feries of years; before they were for a series of years, they were for life; and before they were for life, they had been precarious or at pleasure.

In every feudal country, the progrefs from the precarious grant, to the gift in perpetuity, was experienced. In Scotland, the fame progrefs must have been known; and the confideration of it carries us back to a remote antiquity. For fiefs, in this kingdom, being hereditary about the days of Malcolm II. or Malcolm III. fome centuries must have paffed away in the production of the previous fteps of feudality..

It was not, in fact, till the year 877, that, in France, the progrefs of fiefs to perpetuity was finished. In England, hereditary fiefs were known before the time of Edward the Confeffor, who began to reign in the year 1041. In Scotland, eftates hereditary, or in perpetuity, are mentioned to have been familiar in the age of Malcolm II. who was crowned King in the year 1004; and a certainty of their existence is evinced in the reign of Malcolm III. who fwayed the Scottish fceptre from the year 1057 to the year 1093.

Thefe things, fo natural, fo confiftent, and fo uniform, appear to me to have an authority that is not to be controverted; and, I think, I am juftified to infer from them the high antiquity of fiefs in the Scottish nation.'.

In the fecond chapter he traces the origin of knight Service, which was a certain limited fervice (forty days each year) that the vaffal became bound to perform to his lord, instead of that general obligation that took place in the infancy of fiefs; which was a natural and neceffary confequence of that love of pacific arts which refulted from the idea of property, and civilization of manners:

But while, fays Dr. Stuart, the vaffals of the crown, with their followers or knights, were to fight for the kingdom, we must not imagine that they were its only defenders. In every feudal ftate, the great conditions of fociety were liberty and fervitude. To be free, was to have a title to go to the war, and to feek renown. To be a flave, was to be doomed to toil in the houfe, to fweat in the field, and to know neither ease nor glory. While the fubordinations of men, in the arrangements of feudality, were the peculiar guardians of the kingdom, there was yet, in every person who was free, an inherent obligation to defend it againft uncommon and urgent dangers. The neceffities of the state gave the alarm to all the ranks of the citizens; and the brave made hafte to repel the enemy, and to fpill their blood. There were thus the militia of fiefs, and the militia of the nation.

• Of the free, it was a characteristic, that they might poffefs property; and, while the train of the vaffalage filled up the feudal army, the militia of the nation was neceffarily to confift of the proprietors of allodiality. But though, in general, an allodial poffeffion is to be applied to a property in land, it was likewife to denote an eftate